It's not a question of "fairness" it is a question of whatever penalty your state legislature attached to that particular law. (QUESTION: Bernie Madoff (multi-billionaire swindler) cheated thousands of people out of their entire life's savings but never committed 'violence' towards one of them. Should he go to jail?)
No, the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not outlaw asking about criminal history on job applications. However, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recommends that employers consider the nature of the crime, how long ago it occurred, and its relevance to the job when making hiring decisions.
Well sure,its to make sure someone is convicted of the crime they are charged with, LMAO,no really,its to provide a fair&impartial jury,so the defendant,gets a fair trial.....
It is called "due process of the law"
Duly convicted means that the conviction followed due process of law, which means that the trial preceding the conviction was fundamentally fair. The conviction includes the sentence which shall not exceed the maximum punishment annexed to the crime of conviction. Under the Thirteenth Amendment, a convict may be enslaved for a period of time not to exceed the maximum number of years punishment annexed to the crime of conviction. Any punishment that exceeds the maximum years of punishment annexed to the crime of conviction is undue and fundamentally unfair, which puts it in violation of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition of multiple punishments for the same crime and makes it a clear crime against the victim convicts humanity.
Elizabethan Crime and Punishment was unfair and was mostly done of accusations with no fair trials
A person accused of a crime must be offered a lawyer. If the person can't afford a lawyer, the courts will appoint one for free.
Criminal Justice is the system in every country or jurisdiction of ensuring that a person who commits a crime is brought before the court and given the proper punishment for his offense. It also ensures that a person has a fair and impartial trial if he is accused of committing a crime.
it guarantees a person who has been accused of a crime the right to a layer even if he/she cant afford one.
If you file a police report saying that the other person used the car without your permission you'll be golden. The other person will have to be charged with that crime. Also, be aware that filing a false complaint is a crime. I am not a lawyer, so feel free to double check this.
I believe that it is fair, if there is proof to back it up.
He introduced bail into England in 1485. :) Bail allowed those convicted of a non-serious crime, e.g. theft, to pay a perscribed amount of money so they could be released during the time before their trial, because Richard believed it was not fair for an innocent person to stay in prision before their trial. The bail you payed was no longer valid if you travelled abroad in the time you were released. If you were convicted for a serious crime, e.g murder, and the authorities thought you could commit the crime again, the option of bail was not given. Sorry, but Richard III did not introduce bail into England. He enacted bail reforms, as had kings before him, but bail itself existed centuries before Richard III became king.
sixth (apex)