How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Hammer O'Justice Your Own Question
Hammer O'Justice
Hammer O'Justice, Criminal Lawyer
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 4489
Experience:  Almost 12 years of legal experience, primarily in criminal law
Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...
Hammer O'Justice is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

1.) What are the goals of punishment and corrections 2.)Explain

Customer Question

1.) What are the goals of punishment and corrections? 2.)Explain the rationale behind those goals. 3.) How does the concept of community corrections relate to these goals and rationale? 4.) What is your opinion regarding the use of the death penalty as a form of punishment?
Submitted: 8 years ago.
Category: Criminal Law
Expert:  Hammer O'Justice replied 8 years ago.

1. The goals of punishment and corrections are two-fold: to punish and to rehabilitate.


2. The rationale behind punishment is to provide a deterrent to people so that they will fear being punished enough to avoid criminal behavior. The rationale for the goal of rehabilitation is to correct the behavior that caused the criminal action so that when an offender is released, s/he won't engage in that behavior again.


3. Community corrections helps to reduce recitivism from a rehabilitation aspect. For example, by sending someone to a drug treatment program, the system hopes to rehabilitate the person by removing the motivation for committing a crime. If a person's drug problem is treated, then s/he may not be susceptible to committing criminal acts brought on by the drug problem (i.e. drug possession, burglary to get money for drugs, etc.).


4. My position on the death penalty is that it should be outlawed. Putting the State in the position of killing someone delegitimizes the State because it turns the State into a killer. The death penalty is also disproportionately given to minorities. And finally, it is too final a punishment to be meted out. The system only requires someone to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not to absolute certainty. As a result, people on Death Row have been exonerated at later dates, due to finding the actual perpetrator or through advances in medical sciences. The State can't take back killing someone, and if the person was innocent, it is too late.

Hammer O'Justice and 5 other Criminal Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 8 years ago.

Wednesday 01/28/09


Hello, can you please help me with this questions?


Constitutionality of Free Speech vs. Threats to National Security


I have to Provide a 50- to 75-word response to each of these questions:

This is Due Friday 01/30/09.


1.) What role does the Intelligence Identities Protection Act play in this matter?

2.) What does the threat or exercise of criminal punishment typically have upon journalists?

3.) How might punishment conflict with First Amendment protections of freedoms of speech and press?

4.) How could Novak's publication of Valerie Plame's identity jeopardize national security?

5.) What is contempt of court, and for what reasons are journalists held in contempt?

6.) Who was held in contempt in the blame matter and why?




Expert:  Hammer O'Justice replied 8 years ago.
Sure, I'll look at it tonight when I am home.
Customer: replied 8 years ago.


maybe this information, can hlp you??



Abstract (Summary)

A single statement by a journalist can set off a firestorm of criticism. In the case of columnist Robert Novak, his statement fired up a debate on the limits of speech protected under the First Amendment. Novak set headlines across the country when in July of 2003 he revealed that Valerie Plame, the wife of prominent critic of Pres Bush's policy on Iraq, was a CIA operative. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the government may prosecute anyone with authorized access to classified information, such as the identity of a covert operative, who intentionally discloses that information to someone not authorized to receive that classified information. Eun examines the criminal consequences of Novak's actions.


Expert:  Hammer O'Justice replied 8 years ago.
1. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act sparked the investigation into who was the source who leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a covert intelligence agent to journalist Bob Novak. While normally journalistic sources are considered protected, the Act deemed the information leaked to be a threat to national security and a prosecutable offense. Thus, a grand jury investigation began to determine who had committed this crime.

2. The threat of punishment on a journalist could have a cooling effect on journalists and their ability to provide necessary information to the American public. A journalist may be intimidated into exposing their sources under threat of imprisonment, which in turn might scare sources from sharing information. As a result, journalism as a whole would be less effective in doing its job to inform.

3. Punishment can conflict with the First Amendment's freedom of the press because, as stated above, it can harm a journalist's ability to get and disseminate information. The purpose of having a free press is to have a free flow of information to the marketplace, and threat of punishment can suppress that. Imagine what would happened in the 1970s had Deep Throat been too fearful of exposure to come forward.

4. Bob Novak's publication could have jeopardized national security in that he disclosed the identity of a covert agent. In doing so, he exposed her as an individual that was likely privy to classified information and possibly to the identity of other covert agents. If the wrong people were to trap and interrogate her, it could result in the disclosure of all that information.

5. Contempt of court is essentially an order by a judge that an individual has disrespected a court. Judges generally find individuals in contempt for failing to follow a direct order, failing to answer a subpoena, and causing disruptions in court. A finding of contempt can result in a fine or jail time for the perpetrator. Journalists often find themselves in contempt when they are ordered to disclose information about their sources to the court and they refuse.

6. Judith Miller, a reporter for the New York Times, was jailed for contempt of court. She had been subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury that was investigating the Valerie Plame matter in order to determine who had violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. She refused to respond to the subpoena as a result of her journalistic obligation to protect her sources, and a federal judge subsequently found her in contempt.