Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Sentencing for Identity Theft. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 3 page paper discussing what a judge may want to know before imposing sentence on an individual that has been convicted of identity theft. Though a man received 16.5 years in 2008, the judge will need to determine whether s/he seeks retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation or restitution. Bibliography lists 4 sources.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: CC6_KScrimIDtheft.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
Howard reports that the federal government states there were 8.5 million cases of identity theft in 2006, though private industry sources place the number in the range of 12 to
15 million (Identity Theft Guide, 2007). Recently, a federal judge sentenced a man to 16.5 years in an identity theft case in which he defrauded several banks and used
$150,000 worth of new credit without making payment for any of the new debt (Man gets 16 years for identity theft, 2008). There is no question that the problem
of identity theft is worsening; in response the judicial system also seeks to make a positive contribution to finding a solution for the problem.
In the case of a man convicted for identity theft, the judge has option to pursue retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and restitution in imposing sentence, depending on the laws
of the state in which the man was convicted. Goals of Sentencing The goal of punishment may be of several types, including retribution,
deterrence, protection of society or rehabilitation. Judges may have a great deal of latitude in the sentences they can impose for specific crimes. Though laws establish guidelines for
sentencing, they generally provide a range within which the judge must remain when imposing sentence. Also, legal issues can affect non-legal ones. In 2005, "federal sentencing guidelines shifted
power from the judiciary to prosecutors" (Mauro, 2005), but a ruling in United States v. Booker was expected to "have the effect of shifting power back to the judiciary. The
net effect will be an improvement in the administration of justice, because we are more likely to find wisdom and prudence from impartial judges than from partial prosecutors" (Mauro, 2005).
...