N
Nina Manchesta
Guest
have to go into? Question:
A group of attorneys, judges and law professionals have collaborated to write a uniform criminal code. The code would create uniformity in criminal law across the United States, defining what constitutes a misdemeanor, what constitutes a felony, how crimes are defined, and what the punishment for particular crimes will be.
The code also proposes that the death penalty be abolished, and that the maximum punishment for murder be life imprisonment.
Would you favor the adoption and implementation of such a code? What advantages would result from a uniform criminal code?
What is the likelihood that all states would favor its adoption and implementation, as opposed to the traditional practice of each state defining criminal law within its own jurisdiction?
My argument:
i DO NOT favour a uniform code of law because
it would mean that states would lose the right to make law since there always would be a universal federal law
and that is against the 10th amendment
and hence unconstitutional
however, this argument has a lot of flaws. (like states can come to a consensus and agree on the law). how do i counter that?
can someone please help me come up with a stronger argument?
A group of attorneys, judges and law professionals have collaborated to write a uniform criminal code. The code would create uniformity in criminal law across the United States, defining what constitutes a misdemeanor, what constitutes a felony, how crimes are defined, and what the punishment for particular crimes will be.
The code also proposes that the death penalty be abolished, and that the maximum punishment for murder be life imprisonment.
Would you favor the adoption and implementation of such a code? What advantages would result from a uniform criminal code?
What is the likelihood that all states would favor its adoption and implementation, as opposed to the traditional practice of each state defining criminal law within its own jurisdiction?
My argument:
i DO NOT favour a uniform code of law because
it would mean that states would lose the right to make law since there always would be a universal federal law
and that is against the 10th amendment
and hence unconstitutional
however, this argument has a lot of flaws. (like states can come to a consensus and agree on the law). how do i counter that?
can someone please help me come up with a stronger argument?