Solitary Confinment

I would draft a law for solitary confinement, saying that you need proof and based upon what the criminal is being put in there for. Criminals should be put into confinement if they are seen as a major threat or could possibly do harm. Officials should not have the right to put someone in confinement just based on suspection. There should be a legit reason for them to be sent to confinement. Depending on the severity f the situation should also determine there amount of time an inmate spends there.

There should not be a limit of time because bad actions could add up time, which is the only way the prisoner will learn. With confinement, the isolation teaches them self reflection and to learn from there mistakes, there extra time such as showers and fitness is controlled, as should remain this way. Meaning they have have no power at all and work based on a given schedule. The prisoner should seek this as having no freedom what so ever and therefore will better themselves to gain more freedom within confinement. There should be a law that allows prisoners into confinement only with plausible reasoning and proof. I would give Prison officals "free hand' because they can ultimatly control the prisioners, and without there freedom and being controled, they will learn that acting out towards officals or commiting bad actions will suffer consequences. I would challenege solitary confinment in court because it should be determines based on reasoning for entering jail and criminal recored should be looked at when scentecing. This being because based on the reasoning for being sent, if there actually a threat or bad enough to be spent there, and based on there desgression would determine there time spent in confinment. Confinment should be carefully watched and officals should work accrodingly. Criminals scentence to confinment should be based on a good reasoning and based on criminal backround weather its a debatable issue. Meaning is it in there nature, will they ever learn? and is solitary confinement the way out.

Solitary confionment can overall be used to teach them lesson, how good behavior will get you more rights and freedom. Based on convinction good behavior can result in more rights. Solitary confinment can inforce the expected use of good behavior of the prioners, if not they will learn based on reflection and better there beahvior and themselves overall.

Gangs

I think that gangs will not cease to exist because its hard to control the spread or creation of them, solely because some can be intertwined with several people that can exist throughout the USA. This beings so would be hard to control them, certain gangs are based on ethnicity, religious beliefs etc. these groups can consist with a large number of people and therefore hard to control and/or eliminate. I think in trying to better the problem of gangs in the community can be regulated by and increase in police presence therefore gangs would be less likely to be seen or seen as a threat in public areas meaning people in society or whom are not in the gang would fell more secure in there community and would be less threatened by the risks of gangs around them. This would help business success and the promote security of the people in in the community

Death Penalty

I think that the death penalty should be used depending on the persons criminal backround, this could be including previous counts etc. This should be because the death penalty is an extreme result of a crime and should be carefully and logically determined. The amount of money it takes to keep a prisoner in jail for 1 year is 22,6000 and the amount of money spent on one inmate for a period of 11 months is extreme as well. This money can be used for funding such as schools, which is a much lower price rang. This is unfair because those who are responsible and wish to go somewhere in life should be benefited and schools should be given enough money to supply the students with proper learning, rather than paying for those who committed a crime. And average cost per student is 9,800, thats a 12,800 difference! Money should be more focused on education and those who have no commited a crime, instead of providing all these criminals with food and shelter giving them a "luxery life" because there neciessitys in life are handed to them. Workers have to pay a federal tax, which supports those who are poor providing food stamps etc. and helps provide shelter and necessities for criminals. Our money that we work for should not go to those who commit a crime, its unjust and unfair to those who work hard. Instead our money should benift ourselves and non-criminals in our society.

Insanity defence

I do not think that it is a good law, solely because although ones may suffer from certain health issues. Even though some people are unaware of there actions or think differently from right or wrong, they should be treated but also punished for there actions or they will never learn. If someone who carries a medical history that could be claimed to be a factor of them committing whatever they did, they should be treated for it. But if they committed a crime, they should be punished and not let "off the hook" because of certain health issues, or they will never learn from there wrong actions. Insanity can be considered in criminal cases but should be carefully looked into, if someone uses insanity as a defence it should be greatly looked into, such as previous record, health record and previous offences. Although insanity can be pleaded, the actions of the person should be punished. Not matter what. Insanity should be based on previous health records, if they carry the signs of insanity and the previous health record can support the theory then it should be set, but if not then it should not be used. On the Andrea Yates case, her previous records show signs of insanity, and before her children she was highly successful and knew formally right from wrong, in this case she killed her children to "save them" and wasn't harshly punished for it because it was a result of insanity. I think that she should be punished, she should have jail time for life, and pay the consequences of her actions but as well receive treatment to help her mental state. This was she receives help for her illness which has previously been used yet failed in this case, but she is also paying the time for her wrong and cruel actions, although her life would be affected completely, we must understand that she affected five other lives that never really was given a chance to experience life, in her case she did. She should not be killed because its very contradictioning, because she killed someone she shouldn't be killed for it, yet harshly punished, she ruined five lives, and her one should should be as well.

Criminal Thoughts...

Media should be more regulated, there should be stricter ratings for certain age groups. Those introduced to violent media at a young age can grow up thinking that violence is okay or will act in thought of the movie. Video games and certain TV shows should not be introduced to the young eye because it would be giving them and insight of violence at a very young age. This can result to future violence while growing up and thinking more wrong from right because of the exposed media influence.

Matt fox