What factor is unconstitutional to use as a sentencing factor?
401973
Lots of them.  Race is an easy one.
756351
If the acts were unconstitutional they would be overturned by the Supreme Court.  The Court has already ruled that certain rights of prisoners of war must be considered.
52173
You can't make such a broad generalization.  The statement might not even be true.  Each state or territory might have different sentencing requirements for each each.  The federal government will have its own set of sentencing guidelines as well.  There are so many factors that go into sentencing, your question is not really valid.\n\nSentencing for drugs can be based on many factors, including the nature of the charge, the quantity of drugs involved and whether the drugs were for personal use or distribution.\n\nTo simply assert that cocaine convictions result in higher prison terms than manslaughter convictions without supporting evidence is a logical fallacy.
416840
I think that ANY mandeotory sentances are a mistake.  The Federal Criminal system has adopted this type of system.  By saying that anyone who commits three crimes, whether they be felonies or driving mistakes, should be in jail it is saying that all three-time-offenders are the same.  That the judge hearing the case, who may have 40 years of experience in judging criminals and sentencing people should have no ability to make the decision. \nIt says that a bunch of politicians, most of which are not lawyers at all, know better than the justice system.\nPoliticians have enough trouble writing decent laws.  The penalties ought to be left to people who are experienced in that area.
83699
Defining Crimes and Setting Punishment\n\nIn the United States, the power to define crimes and set punishment for them rests with the legislatures of the United States, the several states, and the territories, the principal authority being that of the individual states. This power in the states is restricted by the federal Constitution, e.g., in the Fourteenth Amendment and in prohibitions against acts of attainder (an act of attainder is a legislative declaration that a particular individual is guilty of a crime) and against ex post facto laws (laws that retroactively declare certain actions to be criminal). State constitutions may also limit state legislative action. The courts cannot look further into the propriety of a penal statute than to ascertain whether the legislature has the power to enact it. Administrative rules may have the force of law, and violations of such rules are punishable as public offenses, provided that the legislature has made such violations misdemeanors.
525264
Technically, it isn't in the U.S. Constitution.  The Miranda Warning came about after Miranda vs. Arizona in 1960(?).  But it refers to the fifth amendment right that protects against self-incrimination, or "the right to remain silent".
132727
Section 147 of the N.I.Act:- notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under this Code (N.I. Act) shall be compoundable.\nanything else?\nmuse_christ@yahoo.com
796456
The offense was extremely severe and violated a federal law.  In state court, you face an elected Judge and it is heard at a local venue (where the offense occurred).  In federal court, it is in the nearest federal court and you face being imprisoned far from home.  You also have a Judge who is appointed, not elected.   Hope this helps.
879532
It should be banned. It amounts to intrusion into the personal freedom. An American citizen could file a constitutional petition before the Supreme Court urging it to protect his Fundamental Right of Freedom to think and decide under the Bill of Rights provisions of the American Constitution.
939505
Every person who attempts, by means of any threat or violence, to deter or prevent an executive officer from performing any duty imposed upon such officer by law, or who knowingly resists, by the use of force or violence, such officer, in the performance of his duty, is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.\n\nIs this what you were looking for?
657292
Dear Friend,\n\nI can't answer as to the second part of your question, but my experience in the U.S. is that judges HATE mandatory sentencing.  Basically the sentencing rules tied their hands and forced them to impose harsher sentences than the circumstances required.  Always easy to say in the abstract what someone should get, much harder when faced with the concrete, a flesh-and-blood person's life, as judges are.  Recent decision in US says that judges can't be held to mandatory sentencing (e.g., for drugs), but have to view them as guidelines.\n\nYour Friend,\nFrancesois
45613
Near v. Minnesota\n283 U.S. 697 (1931)\nAuthor: DK\n\nFacts: A Minnesota law provided for abatement, as a public nuisance, of a malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical. D’s newspaper published defamatory and scandalous articles and a court issued an injunction permanently enjoining the newspaper from publishing.\n\nIssue: Was the law unconstitutional?\n\nHolding: Yes\n\nRationale:  According to the court, the injunction was prior restrain on press and was unconstitutional.  The Court stated that the appropriate way of dealing with unprotected speech was after the fact punishment and not prior restraint on the freedom of press.  Therefore, prior restrain can’t be used to punish a publication unless there exist some exceptional circumstances (e.g. national security during times of war).
987952
In the 2005 Supreme Court Case of Roper v. Simmons, in a 5-4 decision, the Court declared it unconstitutional to impose the death penalty for crimes committed under the age of 18.  \n\nSo, it's unconstitutional to execute a kid, even if they're charged as adults.
746647
I am in law enforcement in Maine. The punishment depends on a number of things, including the discretion of the court, your criminal history and the nature of the crime. I encourage you to call the (non-emergency line of) your local police department and you can ask anonymously what sentence that statute holds. I will tell you that officers HATE to take these calls, because there is such a variance from crime to crime and person to person, so you won't get a specific answer, only a possibility.
416534
The legal system is fraught with inequities. Punishments never seem to fit the crime. I think I have come up with a somewhat novel approach.\nI suggest we take a "one size fits all" approach to crime and punishment.\nWe will determine guilt or innocence in open court.\nInnocent men will go free\n(for the most part, hopefully).\nJustice will be served.\n\nhere's the good part.\n\nAnyone who is determined guilty in open court of any offense:drunk driving, reckless endangerment, shoplifting, jaywalking, public nudity, obscenity etc. and so on \nad nauseum.\nWill face the one penalty allowed under law.\n\nThe penalty for all crimes will be death.It does not matter what the crime is. If you are guilty of it you forfeit your life.\n\nNow who is going to be able to call that unfair.
703417
Any crime that is punishable in the US and UK by one or more years imprisonment upon conviction\n\nOR \n\nConspiring to commit, aiding or abetting the commission of a crime that is punishable by one or more years imprisonment in both countries upon conviction.\n\nhttp://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/USExtradition_210503.pdf
361559
yes! it is so unconstitutional! its just like the alien and sedition acts of the past! remove it now!