The author has made quite a few statements in his book. I have selected two of these statements that I feel pretty strongly about. I believe that mandatory sentencing should be eliminated and I also believe that the hiring of more police officers reduces crime in any city. I will explain my position on both of these subjects in this paper.
Mandatory sentencing is not an effective strategy for reducing serious
I agree with the author that mandatory sentencing is not effective for reducing serious crimes. When a person is being sentenced for a serious crime the crime has already been committed, therefore there was no deterrent. Any kind of sentencing is not going to reduce crime. A person who commits a serious crime is not thinking about the repercussions of their actions. After a person is sentenced they may not commit the same crime again when they get released but the first time a person commits a serious crime they are not thinking about the sentence.
Mandatory sentencing is something in general that I do not agree with in the first place. I believe that the judge should hand down a sentence that he makes, it should not be mandatory what the judge has to do. There are always other circumstances to every case that make it unique. Not every case is the same and when justice is taken away from the judge and he cannot hand down a sentence then there really is no need to even have a judge.
A way to incorporate this into a criminal justice policy is to eliminate mandatory sentencing all together. The common criminal probably does not even know what mandatory sentencing is anyways. The criminal justice system is made up so a judge and a jury can judge there peers, by having a mandatory sentence you are taking the decisions out of the hands of the judge and jury. Mandatory sentencing should be eliminated.
Simply adding more police officers will not reduce crime
I disagree with the author that adding...