This assignment will be submitted to turnitin®.


This assignment will be submitted to Turnitin®.
Read this hypothetical:
Frank Fellman, the first-round draft choice of the local NFL team, was convicted for reckless endangerment. He was driving at 2 a.m. when he struck a young woman who was crossing an intersection; she suffered a broken leg. At trial, the evidence showed that the woman was legally drunk and had entered the intersection against the light.

Fellman, who had a long history of battles with the law, was already under a probation order forbidding any misbehavior and imposing an 11 p.m. curfew. At a hearing, the presiding judge reminded him that he had been warned against any further violations and it had been made clear that violating the conditions of probation would not be tolerated.

During the presentencing investigation, the probation department concluded that Fellman was not a danger, and his scores on the risk assessment scale used by the department found that minimum supervision probation would work in his case. Based on this evidence, the judge chose not to revoke his probation if he made restitution to the victim, surrendered his license, and wore an ankle bracelet tracking device. Because his probation was continued, Fellman would be able to attend training camp and not miss the season.

The news media got hold of the story and claimed that Fellman was being given an unfair advantage because he was an athlete. As a result of the public outcry, the judge reversed his decision and ordered Fellman to serve six months in jail. Fellman’s lawyers have filed an emergency appeal, asking you, the appellate court judge, to grant him relief and suggesting (1) that the original sentence was overly harsh, and (2) the withdrawal of the house arrest order solely because of media attention was a violation of his due process rights.

Using the information you learned in Chapters 9 & 10 of the textbook answer the following questions:
1. Do you think Fellman should be jailed for his behavior even though his scores on a risk classification scale say otherwise? Why or why not?

2. Should we trust these scales, or do they conflict with the ethical treatment of people convicted of a crime?

3. Would you grant the appeal? Why or why not?
Please make sure to fully answer all posted questions using information from the required reading. There is not a minimum word/ length requirement for this assignment. Please submit your assignment via a word document by the due date.