Unfairness In Sentencing

Every victim looks forward to fair trial, conviction and sentencing. Money, time that the lawyer has with the client and other motivating factors determine whether the accused will receive fair or unfair sentence. However, this has not always been true for many suspects in the court of law within US. According to Death Penalty Washighton Center, (2003) victims race, the defendant or both elements play a fundamental role in deciding whether death penalties or death sentences are imposed on victims. For example, black defendants are less likely to get their cases filed on death sentences, but are highly likely to get death penalty imposition compared to white defendants. This report will establish whether there exists any severity of sentences
What are the aggravating factors that lead to unfair sentencing between defendant having public defenders and those with private defenders in the USA?
1.2. Study objective
i. To investigate whether there exist fairness in sentencing between defendant having private defender and those with public defender in USA. ii. To establish whether there are updated regulations that address issues of unfairness in sentencing in USA iii. To investigate the factors that aggravate unfairness sentencing between the clients with public defender and those with public defender in USA
1.3. Hyponthesis
There exists great disparity in sentencing measures imposed on defendant with private defender compared to those with public defenders in the USA
2.0. Literature review
In the last three decades research show that in USA the inmates gap continues to widen between the black inmates and the white inmates; with the blacks receiving unfair and harsh sentencing imposition unlike the white inmates (Yen, 2004). Bagaric (2000) noted that there exist a wide sentencing discretion in various nations (UK and Australia). This is said to result from the sentences idiosyncratic intuitions which trump the fairness and consistency of virtues of the rule of law. The author notes that introduction of fixed or mandatory penalties would help curb discretion within the judicial
Anticipated problem
Though there are increased levels of court injustices and mass incarceration within the criminal justice system, some of the information might be exaggerated especially from the inmate cases. Because I cannot move to courts within the whole nation, due to cost constraints (appendix 2) the information gathered might not be representative and generalization will be also a challenge.
3.8. Ethical considerations
Marshall (1996) point out to the need of every study abiding with the research ethics. The study will ensure such ethical issues of participation at will, informed consent, security ensured from where the participant is completing the survey from, confidentiality is maintained, and ensure anonymity for those who want their names to remain undisclosed. The participants will participate at will and be free to withdrawal from the study at any stage of the survey if they wish. The research will abide by the 1998 Act of data protection that states that collected information must only be used for the intended purpose of the study and not transferable to other intentions whosever. The gathered information will be obtained for this study and questions will only cover the objectives of this study. The research will go through the examination and approval of Human and ethics Committees to ensure transparency and