Complete the “Judiciary Worksheet.” Utilize the Grand Canyon University library to locate a minimum of three to five scholarly, relevant sources to support your content. This assignment uses a scoring guide. (Scoring guide is uploaded) Please review the scoring guide prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
After reading Chapter 2 and watching the video, write a post addressing the following: Do you believe that humans have free-will and free-choice in terms of whether or not they commit crimes? Based on your belief, what theory of punishment from the chapter is most appropriate to deal with people who commit crimes?
please respond to Katie Humans definitely have free will and the free will to make their own choices especially when it comes to committing crimes. Although it is also true that there are factors such as the place or environment a person has grown up in and the people that person grew up with could also play a part in that person's decision making. A person could live in an environment where bad behavior is common. That person has the choice to allow that factor to affect their decision making on whether or not to commit that same crime and face the consequences for it. People who choose to commit crimes are completely aware of the consequences and they had the choice to not commit the crime so yes humans have free will to make the decision to commit a crime. Protective retribution is the theory I find the most appropriate to deal with when it comes to people who have committed crimes. The theory of protective retribution explains that punishment is a means in order to manage balance morally in society. Society treats the person who committed a wrongdoing guilty and deserves punishment, making that person responsible for their wrongful act making everything about morals. I found this theory appropriate because society treats that person responsible for their actions in order to make things equal morally meaning that society gets to choose whether the person is guilty for the rule they might have broken. The protective retribution theory is very interesting and appealing.
please respond to Wendy I do believe that humans have that free-will and free choice when it comes to committing a crime. However, I am aware that there may be cases that involve situation of humans with mental illnesses or were raised a certain way that may have corrupted their minds into believing what is wrong is right. An example I like to use is a child raised in a household with an abusive father who beats their mother. The child may end up believing it is normal to beat a wife since it was normal in their household. If a child is not guided in the right direction, then I feel that they will not be aware of what they are doing is wrong, or may not care at all about who and how it impacts another person. As for a human who commits a crime due to economic struggles; they are aware of what they are committing is wrong but do not necessarily care about the punishment. I believe that each theory works for different types of crimes, the age of the person, and how many times it has occurred. Retribution would best work for someone who has committed a horrendous crime more than once and not learned from it. While I consider rehabilitation for the least and moderate crimes that involve minors, orphans, and people who have confessed to a low crime. A juvenile may benefit more from rehabilitation punishment to learn from their mistakes and have help guiding them to the right path. One type of punishment may not work for everyone. At times the wrong type of punishment may lead someone into committing more crimes due to the reputation that is now attached to them.
I do not believe that jurors should have to explain their decision. The main reason being is that it's completely redundant. The defendant knows why he is on trial, if he's guilty he knows he did it and doesn't need it to be explained to him. On the other hand, if he's innocent he knows that he's innocent and that doesn't need to be explained to him. The entire courtroom has seen the facts of the case, have witnessed the arguments made, have even had a hand in picking the jurors, so there is no reason as to why they should doubt the jury's decision. By requiring jurors to explain their verdict, it may impact the decision they make due to public backlash, especially if they do not argue the verdict well, which could lead to someone who is guilty being declared innocent due to the jury not wanting to receive backlash. Generally I am against the idea of juror nullification because it makes the individual the sole arbiter of the law and what is right and wrong, rather than the Constitution. By being an American citizen, you agree with the social contract and the norms of society, which includes obeying and abiding by the laws of the land. As a member of the jury, you are doing your duty to see that the law is properly carried out. By engaging in jury nullification, you make yourself the sole arbiter of the law and put yourself above the Constitution and the social norms that our society has laid out. That is assuming that the law you are protesting is constitutional; if not, then jury nullification is justified because it is our duty as Americans to protest against unconstitutional laws. But, if it is a situation like the one outlined in the PowerPoint, in which a juror doesn't want to prosecute someone who did a crime because of their skin color, then it is absolutely ludicrous because at the end of the day, we need the law to be applied equally to all men, and if we don't then we have no society to live in.
Submit an advocacy letter to an advocacy collaborative behalf of a devalued individual youth or group contending with systematic discrimination. You will need to clearly identify the person or group, explain the nature of the problem, and/or injustice, and articulate a solution/expectation/outcome for the group.
please respond to Kyle I do not believe jurors should have to explain their verdicts. The jury system is based on the collective judgment of a group of citizens, not on their ability to articulate legal arguments. Requiring explanations could intimidate potential jurors and make them less willing to serve. It could also lead to inconsistent standards, as some jurors may be more eloquent or legally knowledgeable than others. The deliberation process should remain confidential to protect jurors' privacy and prevent outside influence. If there are concerns about a verdict, the appeals process and the judge's ability to overturn clearly erroneous verdicts provide sufficient safeguards. I strongly support the concept of jury nullification as a fundamental right of jurors. Nullification serves as a critical check on government power and allows the community's sense of justice to play a role in the legal system. There have been many instances throughout history where nullification prevented the enforcement of unjust laws, such as the Fugitive Slave Act. While critics argue nullification undermines the rule of law, I believe it ultimately strengthens our democracy by giving citizens a voice in how laws are applied. Judges and prosecutors already have discretion in applying laws; jurors should have that same right in clear cases of injustice.
How to Tell if You're Liberal or Conservative? This chart is listed on page 54 of the textbook. Evaluate yourself and support your decision. Textbook: Harrison, Brigid Callahan (2016) Power and Society: An Introduction to Social Science 14th ed. Cengage Learning ISBN: 978-1-305-57673-X
