how would you respond?

how would you respond?

Should one goal dominate how judges assign criminal sanctions? If not, how would you organize the different goals? By the amount of harm that a person who commits a crime causes? By an individual’s criminal history? By some other factor?

How would you respond to the argument that individuals who are wrongfully convicted are simply casualties of the war on crime? How would you feel if your friend or relative was wrongfully convicted? If you had a friend who was exonerated of a crime he or she did not commit, what government compensation would be best?

Please expand in depth and use APA format and the chapter provided must be used in text as least once.

Post in depth (3-4 paragraph) APA cited posts with in text/reference list (Quality is key)

(APPLY THE BOOK AND AT LEAST ONE OUTSIDE SCHOLARLY SOURCE, CITING (IN TEXT AND REFERENCE LIST) AND PARAPHRASES AS WELL AS THE RESEARCH)

Chapter 4 from the book is the uploaded file

20190208021608ac_chapter_4 (1)

Solution Preview          

CRIMINAL SANCTIONS AND WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

Legally, a sanction is generally penalty assigned for criminal infringement. Criminal sanctions are allotted according to the crime involved in a particular case. Fine, death, probation and mandatory sentence are examples of criminal sanction, just to mention but a few. One goal of the judge cannot dominate in criminal sanction since they perceive the same case from different perspectives, then resolve it in the most appropriate way (Huff & Killias, 2013). Usually, the judge has many goals at the beginning of the case then they reduce them later on, depending on different aspects of the case.

(471 words)