Answered You can buy a ready-made answer or pick a professional tutor to order an original one.
Study the case studies listed in this week's reading assignments, and discuss the following: Which of the cases illustrate determinate and indeterminate sentencing structures? Explain your rationale.
Study the case studies listed in this week's reading assignments, and discuss the following: Which of the cases illustrate determinate and indeterminate sentencing structures? Explain your rationale. Evaluate the effectiveness of the sentencing models as well as the practical implications of the public policies behind each. Please submit your assignment. 2-3 pages
- @
- 1030 orders completed
- ANSWER
-
Tutor has posted answer for $15.00. See answer's preview
********************** ****** and **************** **************** of Affiliation: Determinate and ************* ********************* sentencing differs **** ************* sentencing ********* the ********** ******** Determinate ********** ******** *** ******** ** serve for ** exact **** *** ******** ***** years Indeterminate ********** on the ***** **** *** * ***** ** **** for *** ******** ** ***** Based ** the ***** of ******* v ********** *** ** *** ****** ****** * ****** *** ** *** *** *** ****** ****** v ********* *** ** 85 ** ** evident that both determinate *** ************* ********** was ********* The ******* of the ****** ****** v ****** 543 US 220 ** a ***** ******* ** *** *********** ********** *** ****** ****** * ********* *** ** ** *** ******* v ********** *** ** *** ** * ***** representation ** ************* sentencing The ********** *** ***** ** the degree ** *** ******** ********* and *** federal ********** that relate ** *** casesEvaluate the ************* of *** ********** ******** the **** ** Blakely v ********** *** US *** ****** ******* ******* ****** for *** kidnapping ** *** ********* wife **** *** ** *** ********** *** * second-degree ******* *** ********** ********** ** **** ***** **** * ******* ********** scheme ** ******** *** **** ******* did *** ******* Blakely *** right to *** ******* guidance *** ********** ******** the ***** ****** ***** *** instead imposed a ***** ******** of 90 ****** ***** *** ****** **** *** **** agreement The ***** ********* **** *** ******* ** *** ******** was ********** *** ***** *** Washington ********** ****** Act ** ********* **** ********** Blakely appealed ******* *** **** did *** determine all *** facts ** the **** *** case was heard ** *** US ******* ***** ***** later *********** *** sentencing on events **** *** **** ****** **** *** violated *** Sixth Amendment ***** ** ***** The ******* ***** ****** that *** ***** in the **** agreement ** **** ** *** ******** ********** ********* *** offender * reduced ******** ********* **** ** ****** ****** * Booker 543 ** 220 ****** involves ****** who *** ******* ** the ******* district ***** *** distribution ******* The **** ********** Booker *** ** ***** and ******** ******** as *** *** US ********** ********** *** ***** **** ********* the case ***** ***** facts by * preponderance that supported ********** ** *** months ** life The ***** ***** ********* ****** for ** years ** appeal *** **** *** ********** ** *** ******* circuit ** ******* that ****** ****** statutory maximums ****** be ***** *** ******** ** *** **** *** ****** be proved ****** ***** *** ** ******* Court ***** *** cases *** ********* **** the decisions of *** ******* ***** *** ******* ***** ******* *** ********* and ****** that *** findings ** *** jury must be ********** ***** ** *** ***** Amendment jury ***** ************ *********** *** judge **** prove *** ***** ****** ****** any ************* United ****** * Kimbrough *** ** ** ****** ******** *** *** on ***** and how *** ******** *** ******* *********** ******** in drug ***** ********* ** *** *** ****** ** the ******** were ********* *** * **** **** ********* ******* *** ***** ** ********** of ******** *** ********* sentencing *** ******* ** ** offense ** 500grams ** cocaine powder or **** grams of crack ******* **** Kimbrough pleaded ****** *** ***** ** possession of 50 grams ** ******* he *** sentenced *** ** ***** Ideally such * **** ********* * ******** ****** of 19 ** ***** ***** *** ***** ** ****** **** that the ***** ******** from *** ******* ********** ******* *** Supreme ***** had * *** ******* ** ***** ** *** ***** **** ********** **** such * **** *** **** * presumptive sentence **** *** ******* ***** *** ** ******** ***** ** *** *************************** G * (2005) SENTENCING: ******** **** *** ******** ***** *** ****** ******** *** ****** ****** 933-942Bowman * * (2005) *** ******* ** *** FEDERAL SENTENCING *********** * ********** ******** ******** Law Review 105(4) 1315-1350Robinson * H ***** ******** * * ****** ********** ********** ******** *** ************* ** *** DECISION ****** ******** *** ****** ****** 1124-1161 ******** and Hartley Chapters * *** ****
