Analysis
This trial’s critical inquiry was to determine whether the defendant could expect a reduced sentence because of a course of correction and excellent academic performance since the original sentencing. On the one hand, the appellate record demonstrated the defendant’s progressive reformation, and thus there was no reason to affirm the original sentence. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had no reason to view interim rehabilitation as something that directly related to the crime. Specifically, they were guided by 552 US 38, which showed the court’s ability to impose any acquittal not inconsistent with the law. Each court relied on Guidelines texts defining acceptable terms for a crime of this level.
Conclusion
Yes, it is appropriate to rehabilitate the defendant during the interlocutory periods, and it may affect the reduction of the arrest. The court remanded the case back to the lower courts.
Thoughts
This court case is not any fundamental or textbook illustration, but it shows the organizational structure in the case of multiple consecutive trials. This is interesting since it raises questions about the possibility of rehabilitating the perpetrator between sessions. However, on the other hand, it can become a subject of fraud when the offender hypocritically demonstrates socially responsible behavior in the periods between hearings. It follows that rehabilitation mechanisms must be transparently set up so that the court and jury have no doubts about the accused’s actual rehabilitation.