text:
Glen Park, San Francisco

Glen Park is a residential neighborhood in San Francisco, California, located south of Twin Peaks and adjacent to Glen Canyon Park.

Geography
The neighborhood is nestled at the southeastern edge of San Francisco's central hills, the San Miguel Range. It includes Gold Mine Hill, a portion of Fairmount Hill to the east, Martha Hill to the south, as well as their southern- and eastern-facing slopes. The neighborhood's streets follow the hill's contours to a small commercial district ("the Village") at the intersection of Chenery and Diamond streets.

As defined by the San Francisco Planning Department, the neighborhood borders Diamond Heights to the northwest, along Diamond Heights Boulevard; Noe Valley to the north, along 30th Street; Bernal Heights to the east, along San Jose Avenue; and Outer Mission to the south, along Bosworth Street. (The San Francisco Association of Realtors draws a wider southwestern boundary and calls the adjacent neighborhood Sunnyside.) Historically, the area bordered by 30th Street, the peak of Fairmount Hill, Castro Street, and San Jose Avenue has been known as Fairmount Heights.

The Glen Park neighborhood consists of residential, commercial, and "public" city planning zones, specifically the following zones:
 * One-Family (RH-1)
 * One-Family Detached Dwellings (RH-1(D))
 * Two-Family (RH-2)
 * Residential Mixed, Low Density (RM-1)
 * Public (P)
 * Neighborhood Commercial Transit, Individual (NCT)
 * Neighborhood Commercial, Small Scale (NC-2)

To the west, upper Islais Creek, historically the largest creek in San Francisco, still flows above ground through Glen Canyon from the southern slopes of Twin Peaks. It is only one of two San Francisco creeks (the other being Lobos Creek) to still do so. Today, Islais Creek flows into an underground culvert near the Glen Canyon Park Recreation Center, following its historic route through the Glen Park neighborhood parallel to Chenery and Bosworth (today under the Glen Park Greenway) on its way to San Francisco Bay. Organizations such as the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association have proposed to daylight it.

History and characteristics
The first named streets in Glen Park were mapped in 1872 on land that had been occupied by milch rancher (i.e., dairy farmer) George Ulshofer as early as 1859 or 1860. The route of the Old San Jose Road through the district (also known as the El Camino Real) would become the future streets of Diamond and Chenery, so the route was already well known and well traveled.

In 1897, realtor Archibald S. Baldwin of the agency Baldwin & Howell had a plan for developing a new residential district. While the remote district had been made more accessible with the opening of the San Francisco and San Mateo Electric Railway in 1892 by Behrend Joost (to bring residents to his new Sunnyside residential district just to the south), Baldwin needed an enticement to attract potential buyers to the region. Baldwin owned some of the lands in the district and also managed adjacent lands for the Crocker Estate.

It was Baldwin who came up with the name of "Glen Park" for the district. The first use of “Glen Park” was when Baldwin announced the organization of the Glen Park Company in 1897, with the sole purpose of opening and managing a zoological gardens. His 145-acre pleasuring grounds and zoo became known as Glen Park and the Mission Zoo. Opening in 1898, it attracted 8,000 to 15,000 people each weekend for its vaudeville shows, daring aeronautic displays, sporting events, and animal exhibits. In 1899 with the pleasuring grounds a success, Baldwin began auctioning his home lots, Glen Park Terrace, located along Glen Avenue (today's Chenery Street between Diamond and Elk Streets). Because of difficulties encountered in the management of Glen Park and the Mission Zoo, as well as weak sales of Glen Park Terrace home lots, Baldwin divested all of his holdings in 1901, with much of the land being transferred to the California Title Company and the Crocker Estate. The Crocker Estate would continue to manage the main grounds of Glen Park and the Mission Zoo in today's Glen Canyon as a private picnic and pleasuring grounds until 1922, when the land was finally transferred to the City and County of San Francisco. They began releasing home lots surrounding Glen Canyon after the San Francisco Earthquake in 1906, when the population of Glen Park exploded with new residents who had been displaced by the catastrophe.

Transit through Glen Park began when the San Francisco and San Mateo Electric Railway opened access to southern areas of the city. Transit was improved further in 1916, when the SF & SM was acquired by the San Francisco Municipal Railway. A branch of the San Francisco Public Library opened in 1927. Today, transit is provided by the Glen Park BART station, the J Church line of the Muni Metro, and several Muni bus lines. Interstate 280 is also nearby.

Because of Glen Park's small size and mom and pop businesses, the neighborhood is sometimes described as having a village atmosphere. A multi-use, urban infill project opened in 2006, anchored by a natural foods grocery and a new branch library. Public spaces include Walter Haas Playground, Billy Goat Hill Park, and Fairmount Plaza.

title: Glen Park, San Francisco


text:
Talk:Robin McKinley

Untitled
Just wondering what attention this page still needs that the tag's been added. It's certainly not a candidate for page of the day, but it's an organized page with some biographical and bibligraphical information, some highlights, and cited sources. Is there something I'm missing which merits the attention tag here? Deborah-jl 23:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Attention points
The article sounded interesting and then seemed to run straight out of puff after about 4 lines - just leaving a lot of bullet point/listy type stuff. I'm sure there's a lot of interesting stuff to be added - and I would like to read it: It just doesn't tell enough at present in any sort of depth. Not being a subject I know anything about - I can't add anything myself. Kind regards Brookie 16:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a tough call. She's an author and has written some interesting books, but most of this information is from her own puff-piece autobiographical statements.  I suppose I can bulk it up with 'Contemporary Authors' biographical information, but she actually isn't all that interesting as a person wiki-wise; her main importance is that she has written some important award-winning books. She's not even controversial, sadly. Deborah-jl 05:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Deborah - i've removed the tag following these thoughts. Kind regards Brookie 18:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Missing informaion
I beleive Robin McKinley wrote an article in opposition to fanfiction. This should probably be cited, or at least noted, here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.92.115.10 (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
 * oops, my bad, it was Robin Hobb.

Untitled(2)
This is a terrific book it was very interesting and i got lost in the book. keep doing what you do robin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.239.139 (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

References and "Notability"
I'd have to disagree with User:Deborah-jl about McKinley not being particularly interesting as a person, wiki-wise. She is a pretty notable author and her consistent use of strong heroines as her main character, in contrast to many Young Adult authors is quite striking. Also, I want to know where is that person who added all that interesting stuff with her biography and about her writing, BUT DIDN'T CITE ANY SOURCES?! Come back, come back whomever you are and add them (or give them to me and I'll add them for you). --Mistsrider (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit: By the way, unsigned poster, McKinley did note on her webpage that she doesn't support fanfiction works, but I don't really see how it is relevant here. --Mistsrider (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Elementals
According to our biography Peter Dickinson, Water: Tales of Elemental Spirits and Fire: Tales of Elemental Spirits:
 * by Dickinson and Robin McKinley (co-authors) --my revision by presumption of another editor's "with Robin McKinley"
 * published 2002 and 2009
 * at least the former, also published as Elementals: Water.

Someone who knows should reconcile the pair of listings in the two biographies. -P64

Dickinson children
(continued) The biography Peter Dickinson also gives a two-line identification of Dickinson's first marriage and four children by that marriage, with reference.

That should be incorporated here.

Where are the people who believe Robin McKinley is importance=High? --P64 (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Robin McKinley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.robinmckinley.com/etc/speech_newbery.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robin McKinley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6TEE7QhPF?url=http://www.mythsoc.org/awards/winners/ to http://www.mythsoc.org/awards/winners/
 * Added tag to http://www.childlitassn.org/images/resources/resources-Children-squo-s_Lit_-_Phoenix_Award_Brochure_2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Robin McKinley


text:
Irving Amen

Irving Amen (1918–2011 ) was an American painter, printmaker and sculptor.

Life
Born in New York City in 1918, Amen began drawing at the age of four. A scholarship to the Pratt Institute was awarded to him when he was fourteen years old.

From 1942 to 1945 he served with the Armed Forces. He headed a mural project and executed murals in the United States and Belgium.

His first exhibition of woodcuts was held at the New School for Social Research and his second at the Smithsonian Institution in 1949. He also exhibited at the Artists House in Jerusalem, the Library of Congress, and the National Academy of Design.

Amen studied in Paris in 1950. Upon his return to the United States, he had one man shows in New York and Washington DC.

In 1953, Amen traveled throughout Italy. This resulted in a series of eleven woodcuts, eight etchings and a number of oil paintings. One of these woodcuts, "Piazza San Marco #4" and its four woodblocks constitute a permanent exhibit of block printing in color at the Smithsonian Institution.

Travel in Israel, Greece and Turkey in 1960 led to a retrospective show at the Artist's House in Jerusalem. His art is widely owned and loved. Irving Amen has taught at Pratt Institute and at the University of Notre Dame. He had a show of woodcuts at the Artists Studio in NYC.

In 1974 he illustrated The Epic of Gilgamesh in linocuts and woodcuts for the Limited Editions Club. He designed a set of stained glass windows depicting the Twelve Tribes of Israel for Agudas Achim Synagogue in Bexley, Ohio. His work often depicts themes of Judaism, chess, people, music, Italy and Don Quixote. In his later years he lived and worked in Boca Raton, Florida.

Commissions include a Peace Medal in honor of the Vietnam War. He created designs for 12 stained glass windows 16 feet high depicting the Twelve Tribes of Israel, commissioned by Agudas Achim Synagogue in Columbus, Ohio.

He is listed in Mantle Fielding's Dictionary of American Painters, Sculptors and Engravers and the Dictionary of Contemporary American Artists by Paul Cummings. Amen was also a member of the Society of American Graphic Artists. He was elected member of Accademia Fiorentina Delle Arti Del Disegno, an organization to which Michelangelo, his idol, belonged.

Born in New York City, he taught at the Pratt Institute and at the University of Notre Dame in the early 1960s.

Notable collections – U.S.

 * Museum of Modern Art, New York
 * National Museum of American History, Washington, D.C.
 * The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
 * The National Gallery of Art Washington
 * University of South Alabama – Mobile, Alabama
 * Arizona State University – Tempe, Arizona
 * Tucson Museum of Art – Tucson, Arizona
 * Arkansas Art Center Foundation – Little Rock, Arkansas
 * Arkansas State University – State University, Arkansas
 * Judah L. Magnes Memorial Museum – Berkeley, California
 * Skirball Museum Hebrew Union College – Los Angeles, California'
 * Mills College – Oakland, California
 * Stanford University Museum of Art – Stanford, California
 * Hausatonic Museum – Bridgeport, Connecticut
 * Yale University – New Haven, Connecticut
 * University of Georgia – Athens, Georgia
 * Honolulu Academy of Arts – Honolulu, Hawaii
 * Art Institute of Chicago – Chicago, Illinois
 * Quincy College Art Gallery – Quincy, Illinois
 * Rosary College – River Forest, Illinois
 * Illinois State Museum – Springfield, Illinois
 * Lafayette Art Center – Lafayette, Indiana
 * Art Gallery, University of Notre Dame – Notre Dame, Indiana
 * Davenport Municipal Art Gallery – Davenport, Iowa
 * Des Moines Art Center – Des Moines, Iowa
 * University of Maine Art Gallery – Orono, Maine
 * Baltimore Museum of Art – Baltimore, Maryland
 * Boston Museum of Fine Arts – Boston, Massachusetts
 * Harvard Art Museum – Boston, Massachusetts
 * Town of Brookline Public Library – Brookline, Massachusetts
 * Fogg Art Museum – Cambridge, Massachusetts
 * De Cordova and Dana Museum – Lincoln, Massachusetts
 * Art Museum Mount Holyoke College – South Hadley, Massachusetts
 * Museum of Fine Arts – Springfield, Massachusetts
 * Albion College – Albion, Michigan
 * University of Minnesota – Minneapolis, Minnesota
 * Central Missouri State University – Warrensburg, Missouri
 * Art Gallery University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Nebraska
 * The Art Museum Princeton University – Princeton, N.J.
 * Dartmouth College – Hanover, New Hampshire
 * Rutgers University – New Brunswick, New Jersey
 * Museum of New Mexico – Santa Fe, New Mexico
 * Jewish Museum – New York City, N.Y.
 * New York Public Library – New York City, N.Y.
 * State University of New York – New Paltz, N.Y.
 * University of Rochester Memorial Art Gallery – Rochester, N.Y.
 * Syracuse University Art Collection – Syracuse, N.Y.
 * Asheville Art Museum, Asheville, North Carolina
 * Salem College – Winston-Salem, North Carolina
 * Cincinnati Art Museum – Cincinnati, Ohio
 * Dayton Art Institute – Dayton, Ohio
 * Butler Institute of American Art – Youngstown, Ohio
 * Oklahoma Museum of Art – Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
 * Coos Art Museum – Coos Bay, Oregon
 * Oregon State University – Corvallis, Oregon
 * Lehigh University – Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
 * City of Philadelphia Public Library – Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 * Philadelphia Museum of Art – Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 * Museum of Art – Carnegie Institute – Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 * The Charleston Museum – Charleston, South Carolina
 * Colombia Museum of Art – Columbia, South Carolina
 * Brooks Memorial Art Gallery – Memphis, Tennessee
 * Virginia Museum of Fine Arts – Richmond, Virginia
 * Corcoran Gallery of Art – Washington, D.C.
 * Library of Congress – Washington, D.C.
 * Smithsonian American Art Museum – Washington, D.C.
 * Huntington Galleries – Huntington, West Virginia
 * Madison Art Center – Madison, Wisconsin
 * Neville Public Museum – Green Bay, Wisconsin
 * Milwaukee Public Library – Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Notable collections – international

 * Albertina Museum – Vienna, Austria
 * Bibliothèque Royal – Brussels, Belgium
 * University Art Museum – Edmonton, Canada
 * Fitzwilliam Museum – Cambridge, England
 * Usher Gallery – Lincolnshire, England
 * Victoria and Albert Museum – London, England
 * Biblioteheque Nationale – Paris, France
 * Bezalel National Museum – Jerusalem, Israel
 * Auckland City Art Gallery – Auckland, New Zealand
 * Statische Museum – Elberfeld, Germany

Commissions

 * Designed a Peace Medal to commemorate the end of the Vietnam War.
 * Illustrated the classic, GILGAMESH, for the Limited Editions Club.
 * Created Designs for twelve stained glass windows sixteen feet high depicting the twelve tribes of Israel, commissioned by Agudas Achim Synagogue at Columbus, Ohio.

title: Irving Amen


text:
Battletoads in Battlemaniacs

Battletoads in Battlemaniacs is a beat 'em up platform game developed by Rare and published by Tradewest for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Part of the Battletoads series, the game was released in North America in June 1993, in Europe by Nintendo in October 1993 and in Japan by Masaya on January 7, 1994. It was also ported for the Master System and released exclusively in Brazil. It was released around the same time as Battletoads & Double Dragon, another installment in the series. The game received its first official re-release on the Nintendo Switch Online service on February 21, 2024, as it was not included in the Rare Replay collection for the Xbox One.

The game follows two Battletoads, Rash and Pimple, on a quest to stop Silas Volkmire and the evil Dark Queen from ruling over the world. Many of its levels are enhanced or remixed versions of levels from the original Battletoads, featuring similar mechanics and gameplay styles. Battletoads in Battlemaniacs received a mostly positive response from critics, with praise for its varied gameplay and music, and criticism for its lack of originality and high difficulty.

Plot
The story begins with the Battletoads visiting the Gyachung-La fortress in northern Tibet. Professor T. Bird has invited them there to witness the Psicone Corporation's first demonstration of their new virtual reality game system, T.R.I.P.S. (Total Reality Integrated Playing System). While showing off the system's artificial world (entitled "The Gamescape"), a pig of the apocalypse leaps out of the screen and kidnaps Michiko Tashoku (daughter of Psicone Corporation's CEO, Yuriko Tashoku). Zitz attempts to rescue her, but gets knocked out by the pig and captured as well. The pig escapes back into the Gamescape and Silas Volkmire appears on the screen, announcing his plans to turn the real world into his own Gamescape, and that Michiko and Zitz are being held captive under the evil Dark Queen. With nothing left to lose, Rash and Pimple enter the Gamescape to rescue their friends and stop Volkmire and the Dark Queen from fulfilling their plans.

Along the way, they fight Rocky, a giant stone pig, and race against Scuzz, a rat that challenges them all throughout the final level. The Battletoads finally reach the Dark Queen in her tower and defeat her, but she manages to escape again. Bird picks up Volkmire on his scanners and finds out that he is trying to escape using a teleporter, so the Battletoads leave the Gamescape and hop into the Battlecopter to chase after him.

Depending on the player's actions during this final gameplay segment, there are two possible endings that may occur. If the player is unable to shoot three missiles at Volkmire's teleporter, he gets away, and the Battletoads feel dejected knowing that Volkmire is free and the Dark Queen wants revenge. If the player successfully shoots three missiles at Volkmire's teleporter, the ship crashes in the Himalayas and is recovered, but Volkmire is nowhere to be found. Similarly to the first ending, it is alluded to that Volkmire and the Dark Queen will want revenge.

Gameplay

Battletoads in Battlemaniacs is an action-platform beat 'em up game that takes place inside the Gamescape, a fictional, virtual world where computer-generated villains created by Silas Volkmire run amok. The player controls either Rash or Pimple, depending on which controller they have plugged in, and have longer health meters than in previous games. Unlike previous entries in the Battletoads series, however, each character has their own combo attacks and special moves. Pimple, for example, can use the "BT Big Hammer" special move at the end of a combo, wherein an exaggerated hammer protrudes from his fists, instantly killing his foes. Rash, on the other hand, can use the classic "Big Boot Block" move from the original Battletoads, where his foot transforms into a massive, spiky boot.

The game is split up into six stages, each with their own special type of gameplay. For example, the first stage, "Khaos Mountains" is a side-scrolling beat 'em up, whereas the fifth stage, "Tracktors" is a racing level that takes place on rails. Though the stages feature unique twists on gameplay styles, all of the stages are actually enhanced versions of their counterparts from the first Battletoads. For instance, stage three, "Speeder Bikes" is very similar to the original game's third stage, which also featured the player racing on speedbikes and dodging obstacles in the same way. In addition, stage four, "Karnath's Revenge" also resembles the original game's sixth stage, wherein the player rides along massive, fast-moving snakes in order to get to the exit.

Battletoads in Battlemaniacs also features a handful of bonus stages in which the player can earn extra lives. These stages appear after the second and fifth stages, respectively, and feature Rash or Pimple on a circular disc as the screen scrolls to the right, allowing the player to collect red and blue colored bowling pins and avoid the black ones. In addition, the game features a handful of boss fights, ranging from a massive stone pig named Rocky, who jumps high in the air and stomps the ground, to the Dark Queen herself, who teleports around her tower and shoots magic missiles at the player.

Release
Battletoads in Battlemaniacs was first released for the SNES in North America in June 1993, in Europe in October 1993, in Australia in 1993 and in Japan on January 7, 1994 for the SNES.

The game was ported in 1994 to the Master System by Syrox Developments and was going to be published in Europe by Virgin Interactive with a slated July 1994 launch date. However, the European release was pulled at the last moment for unknown reasons and with the game already having been reviewed by the British video game press. The game was released in a barely finished state by Tectoy in Brazil in 1996; it is an unpolished build of the game, with some stages not having music and minor glitches, some including a choppy scrolling floor in the bonus stages and invisible obstacles in the turbo tunnel.

The SNES version of the game was re-released on the Nintendo Switch Online service on February 21, 2024.

Reception
GameRankings, a game review aggregator, assigned Battletoads in Battlemaniacs for the SNES an averaged score of 78% based on two reviews. Retrospectively, the staff of GamesRadar ranked the SNES version as the 30th best game on the platform, praising it for having "some of the best graphics on the system" and offering "one hell of an experience," stating: "The bosses are massive, the music is rockin', and the ever-present '90s attitude is in full effect—who cares if it's a cynical knock-off of TMNT when it looks and plays this good?" In 2013, Arcade Sushi ranked it as the fourth best retro game in the beat 'em up genre. In 2018, Complex listed the game #39 on their The Best Super Nintendo Games of All Time writing: "Battletoads in Battlemanaics doesn’t quite live up to the original, but it’s an awesome ride all the same. And it’s not as hard.

Andy Smith from Sega Power gave the Master System version 72%, praising the game for its "varied types of action" and "occasional humorous touches", but criticizing it for its "mediocre graphics", "button-stabbing tendencies" and its high difficulty. Smith's most common complaint was the game's lack of originality, explaining that "Battletoads had shades of originality. Battlemaniacs just has shades." He described the game as "showing signs of rapid aging."

title: Battletoads in Battlemaniacs


text:
Mandatory sentencing

Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term of imprisonment for certain crimes, commonly serious or violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.

Mandatory sentencing laws often target "moral vices" (such as alcohol, sex, drugs) and crimes that threaten a person's livelihood. The idea is that there are some crimes that are so heinous, there is no way to accept the offender back into the general population without first punishing them sufficiently. Some crimes are viewed as serious enough to require an indefinite removal from society by a life sentence, or sometimes capital punishment. It is viewed as a public service to separate these people from the general population, as it is assumed that the nature of the crime or the frequency of violation supersedes the subjective opinion of a judge. Remedying the irregularities in sentencing that arise from judicial discretion is supposed to make sentencing more fair and balanced. In Australia and the United Kingdom, sentencing has been heavily influenced by judicial idiosyncrasies. Individual judges have a significant effect on the outcome of the case, sometimes leading the public to believe that a sentence reflects more about the judge than the offender. Subsequently, creating stricter sentencing guidelines would purportedly promote consistency and fairness in the judicial system. Mandatory sentences are also supposed to serve as a general deterrence for potential criminals and repeat offenders, who are expected to avoid crime because they can be certain of their sentence if they are caught. This is the reasoning behind the "tough on crime" policy.

United States federal juries are generally not allowed to be informed of the mandatory minimum penalties that may apply if the accused is convicted because the jury's role is limited to a determination of guilt or innocence. However, defense attorneys sometimes have found ways to impart this information to juries; for instance, it is occasionally possible, on cross-examination of an informant who faced similar charges, to ask how much time he was facing. It is sometimes deemed permissible because it is a means of impeaching the witness. However, in at least one state court case in Idaho, it was deemed impermissible.

Notably, capital punishment has been mandatory for murder in a certain number of jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom until 1957 and Canada until 1961.

United States
Throughout US history, prison sentences were primarily founded upon discretionary sentencing. Sentencing practices under this scheme were largely criticized due to the discretionary applications that judges used in sentencing. The assessment for sentencing was determined by three separate decisions by the judge in each specific case: (1) policy-based decisions, (2) fact-based decisions, and (3) applying such policy to such particular facts. In review of these policies regarding the applications of sentencing, the policy decisions are those that dictate what considerations should affect punishment. The second, which includes factual determinations is the process by which a judge determines whether to apply a particular policy to an offender. The third decision judges make in discretionary schemes is how to apply the sentencing policies to the particular facts. By the mid-twentieth century, mandatory sentencing was implemented.
 * Policy Decisions – Policy guidelines that determine what should be acknowledged in an individual's sentencing criteria. For example: One judge might consider a reduction in time to be served vs. a judge who intends to exercise the fullest extent of the law in reference to the crime committed.
 * Factual Decisions – A review of details that would enable particular policies to be applied at the discretion of the assigned judge. Hypothetically consider, two or more individuals who attempt to commit a crime using a deadly weapon. Assume these individuals reach their destination point, where they plan to commit such a crime. The first individual carries a weapon and then takes it out to threaten another individual (victim) and waves it about, but this perpetrator is suddenly spooked enough that the weapon is dropped. On the other hand, the second individual who accompanied the first perpetrator decides to pick up the weapon, wave it about and even inflicts use of force with weapon, proceeding to either attempt to- or actually commit a crime.

Their actions would result in punishment as a part of the sentencing process, regardless of the type of weapon in question. The first individual waved the weapon, but the second waved and inflicted force. Therefore, the two individuals in question regarding the same crime could receive two separate sentences.

 * Decisions Applying Policy vs. Decisions to Particular Facts – This form of application is the core of discretionary sentencing. It allows for sentencing to be tailored to an individual. For example, consider a minor juvenile who has committed a crime that would allow for a lengthy sentencing period, but because the individual is a minor the assigned judge can exercise discretion and decrease the sentence to be served instead of applying the full length of the sentencing as outlined in policy and the facts associated with the crime.

Over time, the United States had changed implementation of sentencing laws. Beginning in the early 1900s, the United States began to assess its role on the use of drugs, their purpose and the responsibilities within the law. During this time in 1914, opiate drug use outside of medical purpose was prohibited. In 1930, marijuana reached the same platform as opiates, with its use being prohibited. This led to stiffer regulations, even though the use of marijuana was not believed to evoke violent tenancies as previously suggested in earlier years, but this level of awareness had not reached public acknowledgment. In turn, sentencing guidelines in reference to drug use further, as well as they did to sales consisting of opiates primarily (heroin and morphine). The sentencing guidelines applied to the use and sales of drugs. However during this time, discretionary sentencing was still practiced. Therefore, there were different sentences for individuals who were guilty of using prohibited drugs compared to those who sold drugs. Mandatory sentencing and increased punishment were enacted when the United States Congress passed the Boggs Act of 1951. The act made a first time cannabis possession offense a minimum of two to ten years with a fine up to $20,000; however, in 1970, the United States Congress repealed mandatory penalties for cannabis offenses. With the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 Congress enacted different mandatory minimum sentences for drugs, including marijuana.

 * 1st Offense: 2–5 years.
 * 2nd Offense: 5–10 years.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 profoundly affected the US legal system into contemporary times. The act led to a Drug Free initiative regarding an individual's employment, a Drug Free workplace and certification requirements for employers, and a Drug Free environment for those who receive government benefits (such as for low-income housing recipients). The act further addresses interventions regarding illegal sale of imported drugs, such as the ability to confiscate assets for those guilty of distribution. The act also implemented the first laws surrounding money laundering, which also led to the exposure of professional dealers. Those found guilty of distribution were sentenced as outlined.

 * 5g of crack or 500 g of powder cocaine resulted in a minimum sentencing of 5 years.
 * 50 g of crack or 5,000 g of powder cocaine resulted in a minimum sentencing of 10 years.
 * 50 g of powder cocaine imported resulted in no mandatory sentence

Separate from each state's own courts, federal courts in the United States are guided by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. (See War on Drugs for more information about US drug laws.) When a guideline sentencing range is less than the statutory mandatory minimum, the latter prevails. Under the Controlled Substances Act, prosecutors have great power to influence a defendant's sentence and thereby create incentives for defendants to accept a plea agreement. For example, defendants with prior drug felonies are often subject to harsh mandatory minimums, but a prosecutor can exercise discretion to not file a prior felony information. Then the mandatory minimum will not be applied.

Safety Valve was created in 1994 to reduce mandatory sentencing for drug offenders under the following provisions:

 * 1) the defendant does not have more than 1 criminal history point, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
 * 2) the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another participant to do so) in connection with the offense;
 * 3) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury to any person;
 * 4) the defendant was not an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act; and
 * 5) not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided to the government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful other information to provide or that the Government is already aware of the information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied with this requirement.

In October 2011, a report was issued to assess the impact of United States v. Booker mandatory minimum penalties on federal sentencing by the United States Sentencing Commission.

In 2013, United States Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. announced that the Justice Department would follow a new policy restricting mandatory minimum sentences in certain drug cases. Prosecutions dropped, drug enforcement agent morale dropped, and fentanyl and heroin overdoses soared, reported The Washington Post in 2019. In Alleyne v. United States (2013) the Supreme Court held that increasing a sentence past the mandatory minimum requirement must be submitted by a jury and found factual beyond a reasonable doubt. It increases the burden on the prosecutor to show that the sentence is necessary for the individual crime by requiring that a mandatory minimum sentence be denied for a defendant unless they fulfill certain criteria. Attorney General Holder held that the charges placed on an individual should reflect the uniqueness of the case and consideration in assessing and fairly representing his/her given conduct. This purpose is to prevent recidivism.

Criminal justice advocates in the United States argue that mandatory minimum sentences are a major cause of the removal of the "bottom income half to quartile" of its population from the general public. As part of police targeting and surveillance and often harsh sentencing, mandatory sentencing often is proposed as "fairness" by those unfamiliar with the penal systems in the US. Mandatory sentencing still has not been linked to other areas such as racial profiling, a 700% increase in US prison incarceration rates, zero tolerance and prison growth at the expense of employment, housing, education, family support and quality of life.

The state of Florida has a 10-20-Life mandatory sentence law regarding sentences for the use of a firearm during the commission of another crime, and many PSA posters were created after the law was passed, which coined the slogan "Use a gun, and you're done." It gave a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years if the offender pulls a gun, but does not fire a shot, 20 years if at least one shot is fired, and 25 years to life if the offender shoots someone.

Australia
In 1996, 12-month mandatory sentencing laws around third offence home burglary were introduced by Western Australia through amendments to the 1913 Criminal Code. In 1997 mandatory sentencing was introduced to the Northern Territory in Australia. The three strikes and out policy raised incarceration rates of indigenous women by 223% in the first year. The incarceration rate for men rose by 57% and 67% for indigenous men. The mandatory sentencing laws sparked debate of the laws being discriminative (indirectly) as indigenous people are overrepresented in the crime statistics in the Northern Territory.

New South Wales has two mandatory sentences currently. The Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Bill 2011 introduced mandatory life sentence without parole for a person convicted of murdering a police officer. Also, the Crimes and Other Legislation (Assault and Intoxication) Amendment 2014 introduced mandatory minimum sentencing of 8 years for alcohol fuelled acts of violence, as a response to the cases of king hit assaults in Sydney. These laws were championed by NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell largely due to the wide media coverage of similar cases, in particular the case of Kieren Loveridge who killed Thomas Kelly.

Life imprisonment is mandatory for murder in Queensland, South Australia, and the Northern Territory. Life imprisonment is only mandatory in the other states for aircraft hijacking or with a minimum non-parole period of 20 years (25 years in South Australia and the Northern Territory) if a criminal is convicted of the murder of a police officer or public official.

Australia also has legislation allowing mandatory prison sentences of between five and 25 years for people smuggling, in addition to a fine of up to $500,000, and forfeiture and destruction of the vessel or aircraft used in the offence.

In 2017, the government of Victoria introduced a "two-strike" policy, with a minimum six-year jail sentence for repeat violent offenders.

Victoria also has a mandatory 10-year minimum sentence for people convicted of killing someone in a so-called "one punch" attack.

Mandatory death sentence

 * In Canada until 1961, murder was punishable only by death, provided that the offender was a sane adult, and until September 1, 1999, the National Defence Act specified a mandatory death sentence for certain acts (cowardice, desertion, unlawful surrender) if done traitorously.
 * In 1930, the city of Canton (now Guangzhou), in China, enacted a mandatory death penalty for three-time offenders.
 * In Czechoslovakia, under Beneš decree No. 16/1945 Coll., informing to German authorities during World War II's occupation was subject to a mandatory death sentence if it led to death of the person concerned by the act.
 * In pre-1833 France, before juries were allowed to find mitigating circumstances to felonies, death penalty was the only available sentence for capital offenses. Given this, the question of mitigating circumstances became crucial when juries considered verdict against a person prosecuted for assassinat (roughly first-degree murder) until the abolition of the guillotine in 1981.
 * In Hong Kong, murder carried a mandatory death sentence until 1993, when capital punishment was legally abolished. However, the last execution was in 1966, and all death sentences afterward were automatically commuted to life imprisonment. Since then, murder carries a mandatory life sentence.
 * In India, murder committed by a convict serving a life sentence carries a mandatory death sentence. The mandatory death penalty provided in Section 31A of India Law is in the nature of minimum sentence in respect of repeat offenders of specified activities and for offences involving large quantities of specified categories of narcotic drugs. As of August 2005, aircraft hijacking also mandates use of the death penalty.
 * In Japan, the only crime punishable by a mandatory death sentence is instigation of foreign aggression.
 * In Singapore, there is a mandatory death penalty for certain offences, most notably murder and possession of a certain amount of controlled drugs, although recently these rules have been relaxed. Under the Arms Offences Act of Singapore, the death penalty is also mandatory for discharge of illegal firearms, and should an offender be found in possession of a firearm when arrested for any offence, the offender faces a mandatory life sentence with caning. Mandatory caning is also applied to cases like robbery under Singapore law.
 * In Sweden, under the previous penal code (abolished in 1966), capital punishment was mandatory for prisoners serving a life sentence found guilty for murder or, unless under mitigating circumstances, manslaughter. The death penalty for murder was abolished in 1921.
 * In Taiwan, there used to be a large number of offenses that carried a mandatory death penalty; by 2006, all these laws have been relaxed to permit judicial discretion.
 * In the United Kingdom, crimes punishable by a mandatory death sentence included murder (until 1957, and from 1957 to 1965 if certain aggravating criteria were met, such as murder by firearm or murders on separate occasions), treason (until 1998), sedition and espionage.
 * In the United States, mandatory death sentences were determined to be unconstitutional in 1976, following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Woodson v. North Carolina. They were mainly used for murder and assault by convicts serving life sentences.
 * In Israel, the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law mandates a death penalty for those found guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or crimes against the Jewish people.

Other
Denmark has mandatory minimum sentences for murder (five years to life) and regicide (life in prison § 115), deadly arson is punished with imprisonment from 4 years to life, and for an illegal loaded gun one year in state prison.

The state of Florida in the United States has a very strict minimum sentencing policy known as 10-20-Life, which includes the following minimums: 10 years' imprisonment for using a gun during a crime, 20 years' imprisonment for firing a gun during a crime, and 25 years' imprisonment in addition to any other sentence for shooting somebody, regardless of whether they survive or not.

In Canada and Ireland, life imprisonment is mandatory for murder if committed, at the time of the offence, as an adult. Parole ineligibility periods vary, but under Irish and Canadian law, are not less than 7 and 10 years, respectively.

In New Zealand, life imprisonment is mandatory for murder. Murders with certain aggravating factors have a mandatory 17-year non-parole period, instead of the default 10 years for life imprisonment. Since 2002, judges have the ability to overrule mandatory sentences where they would be deemed "manifestly unjust", such as in cases involving mercy killings and failed suicide pacts.

In Germany, murder for pleasure, sexual gratification, greed or other base motives, by stealth or cruelly or by means that pose a danger to the public or to facilitate or cover up another offense is mandatorily punished by life imprisonment.

In Ireland, Acts of the Oireachtas specify a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder and treason, and mandatory minimum sentences for various lesser offences. A mandatory minimum sentence may be truly mandatory or may be presumptive, giving a judge discretion to impose a lesser sentence in exceptional circumstances. Mandatory sentences have been challenged on grounds that they violate the separation of powers required by the constitution, by allowing the Oireachtas (legislature) to interfere in the judicial process. In 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder was constitutional. However, in 2019, it ruled that a mandatory minimum sentence had to apply for all offenders, not for certain classes of offenders. It struck out a sentence of 5 years for possession of a firearm, because it was truly mandatory only for a second offence, whereas it would have been presumptively mandatory for a first offence. A mandatory sentence for a second offence of drug trafficking was struck out in 2021 for similar reasons; the conviction was upheld but the sentence referred back to the Circuit Court for reconsideration.

In the United Kingdom, upon conviction for murder, the court must sentence the defendant to life imprisonment. The law requires that courts must set a minimum term before they become eligible for parole. For this purpose a number of "starting points" are in place that give guidance to a judge to impose a sentence in each different case of murder. There are currently five "starting points" for murder in England and Wales, namely: 12 years' imprisonment for cases of murder committed by a person under 18; 15 years' imprisonment for all "other" cases of murder committed by a person over 18; 25 years' imprisonment for cases of murder where a person over 18 uses a knife or other weapon at the scene; 30 years' imprisonment for cases of murder with "particularly" high aggravating factors, such as those that involve the use of a firearm or explosive, or a murder in the course of committing another offence such as robbery or burglary; and a whole life order, in cases that involve such "exceptionally" high aggravating factors, such as the murder of two or more persons, or the murder of a child following abduction or with sexual/sadistic motivation, meaning the person will never become eligible for parole.

The United Kingdom currently also has three more mandatory minimum sentences for certain offences, namely: a minimum of 7 years' imprisonment for a person over 18 convicted of trafficking, supplying or producing Class A drugs for the third or subsequent time; a minimum of 5 years' imprisonment (for a person over 18) or 3 years' imprisonment (for a person aged 16–17) for possession, purchase, acquisition, manufacture, transfer or sale of a prohibited firearm or weapon for the first or subsequent time; and a minimum of 3 years' imprisonment for a person over 18 convicted of a domestic burglary for the third or subsequent time.

Three strikes law
In 1994, California introduced a "Three Strikes Law". This state is known for fully enforcing laws and is considered most severe in comparison to other states. The Three strikes law was intended to reduce crime by implementing extended sentencing to deter repeated offenders. This consideration further restricts one's ability to commit new crimes. Similar laws were subsequently adopted in most American jurisdictions.

However, California's "Three Strikes Law" is clearly outlined for all, especially those who are subjected to such sentencing.

strike (1)
 * Directly affects individuals who exhibit a history regarded as violent or serious pertaining to their initial felony conviction. Should this history exist, it could greatly impact sentencing guidelines surrounding an individual's present felony conviction.

strike (2)
 * An individual who has committed a crime resulting in their 2nd felony conviction, would be affected by the second strike as well. This would impact the length of the individuals sentencing by doubling the sentence one would initially be subject to, if it were their first felony conviction.

strike (3)
 * Is intended individuals who appear to be repeated offenders. Therefore, this strike is for individuals who have two or more felony convictions, their sentencing would result in a minimum of 25 years to life.

A similar "three strikes" policy was introduced to the United Kingdom by the Conservative government in 1997. This legislation enacted a mandatory life sentence on a conviction for a second "serious" violent or sexual offence (i.e. "two strikes" law), a minimum sentence of seven years for those convicted for a third time of a drug trafficking offence involving a class A drug, and a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for those convicted for the third time of burglary. An amendment by the Labour opposition established that mandatory sentences should not be imposed if the judge considered it unjust.

According to figures released by the British government in 2005, just three drug dealers and eight burglars received mandatory sentences in the next seven years, because judges thought a longer sentence was unjust in all other drug and burglary cases where the defendant was found guilty. However, in 2003 a new "two strikes" law was enacted (effective from April 4, 2005), requiring courts to presume that a criminal who commits his second violent or dangerous offence deserves a life sentence unless the judge is satisfied that the defendant is not a danger to the public. This resulted in far more life sentences than the 1997 legislation. In response to prison overcrowding, the law was changed in 2008 to reduce the number of such sentences being passed, by restoring judicial discretion and abolishing the presumption that a repeat offender is dangerous.

Australia's Northern Territory in March 1997 introduced mandatory sentences of one month to one year for the third offence regarding property and theft. They were later adopted by Western Australia.

Race
Concerning US federal prisons, Barbara S. Meierhoefer, in her report for the Federal Judicial Center stated: "The proportion of black offenders grew from under 10% in 1984 to 28% of the mandatory minimum drug offenders by 1990; whites now constitute less than a majority of this group. This is a much more dramatic shift than found in the federal offender population in general."

According to the Statistical Overview of Mandatory Minimum Penalties presented in October 2011, "[o]f all offenders convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum punishment and who remained subject to that penalty at sentencing, 38.5 percent were Black (n=4,076), 31.8 percent were Hispanic (n=3,364), and 27.5 percent (n=2,913) were White."

Although exceptions such as the safety valve are authorized, demographics associated with race relevant to mandatory sentencing continue to show. "Hispanic offenders received relief from applicable mandatory minimum penalties at the highest rates, with rates of 65.9 percent in fiscal year 2000, 57.7 percent in fiscal year 2005, and 55.7 percent in fiscal year 2010. Other Race offenders had the next highest rates (52.8% in fiscal year 2000, 53.1% in fiscal year 2005 and 58.9% in fiscal year 2010). Black offenders consistently had the lowest rates (45.7% in fiscal year 2000, 32.8 percent in fiscal year 2005, and 34.9% in fiscal year 2010). White offenders received relief at 60.3 percent in fiscal year 2000, 42.5 percent in fiscal year 2005, and 46.5 percent in fiscal year 2010."

Reception
Opponents of mandatory sentencing point to studies that show criminals are deterred more effectively by increasing the chances of their conviction, rather than increasing the sentence if they are convicted. In a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, Judge Paul G. Cassell, from the United States District Court for the District of Utah, described mandatory sentencing as resulting in harsh sentencing and cruel and unusual punishment, stating that the sentencing requirements punish defendants "more harshly for crimes that threaten potential violence than for crimes that conclude in actual violence to victims". A hearing in 2009 heard testimony from the American Bar Association which stated that "Sentencing by mandatory minimums is the antithesis of rational sentencing policy". In 2004 the association called for the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences, stating that "there is no need for mandatory minimum sentences in a guided sentencing system." A 1997 study by the RAND Corporation found that mandatory minimums for cocaine offenses were not cost-effective in regards to either cocaine consumption or drug crime.

Some judges have expressed the opinion that mandatory minimum sentencing, especially in relation to alcohol-fueled violence, is not effective. In R v O’Connor, the High Court of Australia gave the opinion that when an offender is intoxicated, there will likely be a change in their personality and behaviour, which will then affect their self-control; that, while an offender may commit an act which is voluntary and intentional, it is not something that they would have done in a sober state. Intoxication is not a justification for criminal behaviour, nor (in most jurisdictions in the U.S. and Commonwealth) a legal defence; but since an intoxicated person's decisions are less likely to be shaped by rational assessment of consequences than those of a sober person, deterrence is likely to be less effective for intoxicated people.

Research indicates that mandatory minimum sentencing effectively shifts discretion from judges to the prosecutors. Prosecutors decide what charges to bring against a defendant, and they can "stack the deck", which involves over-charging a defendant to get them to plead guilty. Since prosecutors are part of the executive branch, and the judicial branch has almost no role in the sentencing, the checks and balances of the democratic system are removed, thus diluting the notion of separation of powers. Opponents of mandatory sentencing argue that it is the proper role of a judge, not a prosecutor, to apply discretion given the particular facts of a case (e.g., whether a drug defendant was a kingpin or low-level participant, or whether sex offender registration is an appropriate measure for a given crime and offender). When prosecutors apply discretion, they tend to invoke sentencing disparities when choosing among a variety of statutes with different sentencing consequences. In addition to fairness arguments, some opponents believe that treatment is more cost-effective than long sentences. They also cite a survey indicating that the public now prefers judicial discretion to mandatory minimums.

In 2015, a number of United States reformers, including the ACLU, the Center for American Progress, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, Koch family foundations, the Coalition for Public Safety, and the MacArthur Foundation, announced a bipartisan resolution to reform the criminal justice system and reduce mandatory sentencing laws. Their efforts were lauded by President Obama who noted these reforms will improve rehabilitation and workforce opportunities for those who have served their sentences. In their arguments they noted that mandatory sentencing is often too harsh of a punishment and cripples someone's livelihood for minor crimes.

In 2019, then presidential candidate Joe Biden unveiled his criminal justice reform plan which would eliminate mandatory minimum sentences.

People sentenced to mandatory sentences

 * Weldon Angelos – 55 years for possessing a handgun while he sold $350 worth of marijuana to a police informant on three separate occasions
 * Leandro Andrade – 50 years without parole for theft of nine video tapes
 * Morton Berger – 200 years without probation, parole or pardon for twenty counts of sexual exploitation of a minor; each count represented a separate child pornography image he had possessed
 * Genarlow Wilson – 10 years for aggravated child molestation; released in 2007 after serving four years because the courts decided his sentence was disproportionate to the actual facts of the crime
 * Chantal McCorkle – 24 years for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud; sentence subsequently reduced to 18 years on appeal
 * Richard Paey – 25 years for 15 counts of drug trafficking and other charges including fraud; granted a pardon in 2007 after serving three and a half years due to the circumstances of his drug use
 * Timothy L. Tyler – Life in prison for possessing 13 sheets of LSD.
 * John the Painter – Sentenced to death for arson in royal dockyards.
 * Van Tuong Nguyen – Sentenced to death for trafficking 396.2g of heroin through Singapore
 * Yehezkel Enigster, mandatory death sentence for crimes against humanity. On appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court, he was acquitted of the charge carrying the mandatory death penalty and his sentence was reduced to two years.
 * Adolf Eichmann and Ivan Demjanjuk were both subject to mandatory death sentence after being convicted of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against the Jewish people. Demjanjuk's sentence was overturned on appeal on the basis of reasonable doubt after new evidence emerged.
 * Yong Vui Kong, a drug trafficker from Malaysia, was sentenced to the mandatory penalty of death in 2008 for trafficking more than 47 grams of heroin into Singapore. After the changes to the death penalty laws in Singapore, which removed the mandatory death sentence for certified drug couriers convicted of drug trafficking, Yong was certified to be a drug courier and thus he, together with some of the other convicted drug traffickers on death row, became eligible to reduce his sentence. Following an appeal, Yong's death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane.
 * Kho Jabing and Galing Anak Kujat were two Malaysians and foreign workers working in Singapore on work permits. They were both condemned to hang in 2010 by the High Court of Singapore for the 2008 robbery and murder of 40-year-old Cao Ruyin (murder warrants a mandatory death sentence in Singapore). Following an appeal in 2011, Galing's conviction was reduced to robbery with hurt and his sentence was lowered to 18 and a half years in prison with 19 strokes of the cane. After the Singapore government removed the mandatory death penalty in January 2013 for crimes of murder with no intention to kill, Kho Jabing's death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane following a re-trial in the High Court in August 2013. However, the prosecution appealed against the life sentence, and thus in 2015, the five-judge Court of Appeal, by a decision of 3 to 2, sentenced Kho to death. Eventually, Kho Jabing was executed on the afternoon of May 20, 2016, by long drop hanging in Changi Prison.
 * Singaporeans Adrian Lim, Tan Mui Choo, and Hoe Kah Hong who were hanged in 1988 for killing two children in the 1981 Toa Payoh ritual murders case in Singapore.
 * Mohammed Ali bin Johari, who was hanged in 2008 for the child rape and murder of his stepdaughter in Singapore.
 * Took Leng How, a Malaysian and vegetable packer who was hanged in 2006 for murdering 8-year-old Huang Na.
 * Flor Contemplacion, a Filipino domestic worker executed in March 1995 for murdering another Filipino domestic worker and a four-year-old boy.
 * John Martin Scripps, a British spree killer hanged in April 1996 for murdering three tourists. He was the first Briton to receive a mandatory death sentence in Singapore and also the first to be executed in Singapore since the country gained independence in 1965.
 * Sek Kim Wah, a Singaporean NS army conscript who was hanged on December 9, 1988, for the 1983 Andrew Road triple murders and used a rifle to commit robbery at the same time. He was also responsible for a double murder near Seletar Road.
 * Iskandar bin Rahmat, a former police officer from the Singapore Police Force, was convicted of two counts of murder with intention to kill and was thus subjected to the mandatory death penalty. He was responsible for killing a father and son during a robbery in Singapore, for which the case made national headlines as the Kovan double murders.
 * Ong Hwee Kuan, Ong Chin Hock and Yeo Ching Boon, three youths and friends all of the same age, were given the mandatory death sentence for the robbery, kidnapping and murder of 18-year-old policeman Lee Kim Lai on April 25, 1978. They were all executed on the same day in February 1984.
 * Anthony Ler Wee Teang, a 34-year-old Singaporean who, in May 2001, manipulated a 15-year-old male teenager to murder his wife Annie Leong Wai Mun. He received the mandatory death penalty after being found guilty of abetting the murder, and was hanged in December 2002. The youth, who was not publicly identified due to his age, was found guilty of murder, but was spared the mandatory death penalty and was indefinitely detained for 17 years at the President's Pleasure. The boy, then aged 32, was released in 2018 after the President of Singapore granted him clemency and commuted his sentence.
 * Ahmad Najib bin Aris, a Malaysian who was sentenced to death in 2005 for abducting, murdering and raping 32-year-old Canny Ong in 2003, for which the case made shocking headlines in Malaysia. Additionally, Ahmad Najib received another sentence of 20 years' jail with 10 strokes of the cane for rape. The higher courts of Malaysia upheld and eventually finalized Ahmad Najib's death sentence, resulting in his execution on September 23, 2016, 13 years after Ong's murder.
 * Mathavakannan Kalimuthu, an Indian Singaporean who was sentenced to death on November 27, 1996, for murdering a gangster on May 26, 1996. Mathavakannan was subsequently granted clemency from then President of Singapore Ong Teng Cheong, who commuted his mandatory death sentence to life imprisonment. His two accomplices Asogan Ramesh Ramachandren and Selvar Kumar Silvaras were hanged in May 1998 after failing to receive clemency.
 * Wang Zhijian, a Chinese national who murdered his girlfriend and both her daughter and flatmate in their rented flat in Yishun, Singapore in 2008. He was sentenced to death in 2012 for murder, and lost his appeal in 2014; Wang was presumably executed after 2014.
 * Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam, a Malaysian who was convicted of drug trafficking and executed despite (unproven) allegations that he was mentally disabled
 * Hannah Ocuish – a 12-year-old American girl sentenced to death for first-degree murder despite age and intellectual disability
 * Darrell Brooks was sentenced to mandatory life in prison for six counts of first-Degree intentional homicide. He was also found guilty on 70 other charges and was sentenced to 1067 years of imprisonment and supervised release.
 * Teo Ghim Heng - a 44-year-old Singaporean and former property agent who murdered his pregnant wife and daughter in 2017. He received two mandatory death sentences for two charges of premeditated murder (or intentional murder), the most serious degree of murder which was solely punishable by death under Singapore law.

title: Mandatory sentencing


text:
ACSM

ACSM may refer to:

 * Academy Sergeant Major (AcSM), the senior warrant officer at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst
 * Accumulated Campaign Service Medal
 * Adobe Content Server Manager, a file format used with Adobe Digital Editions to provide digital rights management for e-books
 * American College of Sports Medicine
 * American Congress on Surveying and Mapping
 * Associateship of the Camborne School of Mines, a British mining qualification

title: ACSM


text:
Hong Kong legislative elections

Legislative elections are held in Hong Kong every four years Legislative Council (LegCo) in accordance with Article 69 of the Basic Law. Legislative elections are held either at the expiry of a four-year term or when the Chief Executive dissolves the legislature and calls a new election.

Elections for the geographical constituencies were hotly contested. Across constituencies, LegCo elections have been mocked as a weak attempt at democracy and lacks the power to make laws and be the voice of the people of Hong Kong. Even prior to the handover in 1997, the LegCo  played a lesser role to the powerful Executive Council (EXCO) as the real corridor of power in Hong Kong, though reforms made by Governor Chris Patten expanded the electoral franchise by allowing more voters to participate in the functional constituency elections. These reforms were revoked by Beijing after the 1997 handover.

History
The Legislative Council was composed exclusively of ex officio or nominated members from its establishment in 1883 through 1985.

Indirect elections to the legislature
Months before the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed which the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China governments agreed on handing over Hong Kong from British to Chinese rule in 1997, the Green Paper: the Further Development of Representative Government in Hong Kong was published in July 1984. The Green Paper cemented first large-scale constitutional reform in developing a representative government during the British rule. The Green Paper suggested the introduction of indirect election in two stages in 1985 and 1988 to the unofficial members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong (LegCo) by an electoral college consisting of Members of the Urban Council of Hong Kong, the new Regional Council to be established in 1986, and District Boards and functional groups or functional constituencies. The first Legislative Council elections, electing 24 unofficial members of LegCo, was held in September 1985.

Popular elections to the legislature
Consultations on furthering electoral reform followed the 1985 electoral reform. In the White Paper: the Further Development of Representative Government in Hong Kong of 1984, the idea of direct election was suggested to be reviewed in the development of representative government in 1987.

In May 1987, the government published the 1987 Green Paper: Review of Developments in Representative Government to consider the next stage of development of representative government. Despite strong public opinion in the consultations supporting the introduction of direct elections, the Government concluded that no clear consensus on the timing or the extent of the introduction of direct elections emerged. The subsequent White Paper: the Development of Representative Government: The Way Forward delayed the first direct elections to the Legislative Council from 1988 to the 1991 elections. 18 members were returned from geographical constituencies by popular vote, out of a total of 60 LegCo members.

As Chris Patten succeeded David Wilson as the last Governor of Hong Kong, extensive electoral reform proposals were announced in Patten's inaugural Policy Address. The minimum voting age was lowered from 21 to 18, and all appointed seats on the Urban Council, Regional Council and District Boards were to be abolished by 1995. Single-member constituencies were to be introduced to geographical constituencies of the Legislative Council, elected seats of the Urban Council, elected seats of the Regional Council and elected seats of District Boards.

Patten significantly broadened the electoral franchise to the first fully-elected Legislative Council returned in 1995, the composition of which conformed with Basic Law provisions on the composition of the 1st Legislative Council of Hong Kong SAR. Patten lobbied the Legislative Council (Electoral Provisions) (Amendment) Bill 1994 which broadened the franchise of certain existing functional constituencies by replacing corporate voting with individual voting. 9 new functional constituency seats were established, allowing about 2.7 million people to have the right to vote in functional constituencies. An Election Committee composed of district board members returned 10 members to the Legislative Council.

In response to Patten's reforms, Beijing cancelled the "through-train arrangement" allowing the last Legislative Council in the British-era to be sworn in as the 1st Legislative Council of Hong Kong SAR after the transfer of sovereignty to China in 1997. The Preparatory Committee for the Hong Kong SAR under Chinese National People's Congress established the Provisional Legislative Council on 26 January 1996 that served as Hong Kong's interim legislature until July 1998.

Post-handover development
The Provisional Legislative Council (PLC) installed by the Beijing government during the intense Sino-British confrontation over the democratic reform decided on the electoral system of the post-handover Legislative Council. For geographical constituencies, proportional representation using the largest remainder method with Hare quota was adopted by the SAR government in replacement of the first-past-the-post system introduced in 1995. The system designed to reward the weaker pro-Beijing candidates and dilute the electoral strength of the majority democrats. For functional constituencies, corporate voting was restored after it was abolished in 1995. It reduced the number of eligible voters by almost 90 percent, from over 1.1 million in 1995 to fewer than 140,000 in 1998. The elected Urban Council and Regional Council were also abolished by Tung Chee-hwa's government.

The first legislative election in the HKSAR was held in 1998, with 20 members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 10 members returned by the 800-member Election Committee and 30 members returned by functional constituencies (FC). The number of LegCo members returned from geographical constituencies (GC) increased from 20 to 24 in 2000 and to 30 in 2004, constituting half of the legislature. Seats returned by Election Committee were abolished by 2004.

2005 electoral reform proposal
In April 2004, Mr. Tung Chee-Hwa, the former Chief Executive of Hong Kong, submitted his Report to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) on whether there is a need to amend the methods for selecting the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong in 2007 and for forming the Legislative Council of Hong Kong in 2008.

On 26 April 2004, the NPCSC at its 9th session of meeting adopted a Decision (see whole text), which rejected universal suffrage in both 2007 and 2008. However, the Decision allowed appropriate amendments to the methods for selection and formation of the Chief Executive and the Legco to be made as long as they conform to the principle of gradual and orderly progress. Afterwards, the government continued to consult the public on the issues of political reform by a special commission led by the Chief Secretary for Administration. Eventually, the government tabled its motions (see whole text) on the aforesaid amendments at the Legislative Council Meeting on 21 December 2005.

The motions were considered to have no progress and improvement to the democratic development by the pro-democracy councilors. Since the government lacked the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Legislative Council, both motions were voted down.

2010 electoral reform
The Legislative Council passed the Government's bill on amending Annex II of the Basic Law. The total number of Legislative Council members is increased from 60 to 70. Alongside the creation of five new geographical constituency seats, five new functional constituency seats were created in the District Council (Second) FC. The 5 new FC seats were returned by direct elections through proportional representation using the largest remainder method with Hare quota.

The 2010 electoral reform provides for parallel voting, in which each registered voter can participating in the election of one geographical constituency and one functional constituency and

The District Council (Second) FC was abolished by the National People's Congress under the 2021 Hong Kong electoral changes.

2012 by-election procedure amendment proposal
In mid-May 2011, the government, which considered the resignations leading to "de facto referendum" (2010 Hong Kong by-election) 'abusive' and a waste of resources, revealed its plan to do away with by-elections entirely. Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Stephen Lam proposed that a Legislative Council seat in any geographical constituency or one of the newly created five-seat district council 'superconstituency' vacated by the resignation or death of a legislator would be filled by a 'leapfrog' mechanism by the next best placed candidate at the previous election. The plan attracted criticism from Pan-Democrats; even its allies in the legislature expressed reservations about the workability of the plan. The Bar Association severely criticised the plan, expressing concern over the constitutionality of the proposals, particularly the reasonableness on restrictions on the right to participation.

The government tabled a bill to amend current legislation for by-elections for 13 July. Following call by the Central Government Liaison Office to re-think, the government revised its proposal on 28 June stipulating replacement by an unsuccessful candidate on the same election ticket. The government bowed to pressure and announced one week later that it would suspend reading of the bill for two months, pending consultations on the revised proposals.

2021 electoral reform
The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress amended Annex II of the Basic Law on 30 March 2021. Under the reform, the Legislative Council is now composed of 90 members returned from 3 constituencies, with seats returned by Geographical Constituencies reduced from 35 to 20; the Election Committee Constituency  was re-established for returning 40 members.

Electoral system
Under the 2021 Hong Kong electoral changes initiated by the National People's Congress, the Legislative Council is now composed of 90 members returned from 3 constituencies. Each candidate running for Legislative elections is to be nominated by 10-20 members of the Election Committee, before their eligibility is reviewed and confirmed by the Candidate Eligibility Review Committee of the HKSAR according to opinions issued by the Committee for Safeguarding National Security of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region:

Geographical Constituencies
20 seats of the Legislative Council are returned by geographical constituencies (GC) through single non-transferable vote with a district magnitude of 2 ("binomial system"). The binomial system was instituted by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in its amendment to Annex 2 of the Basic Law on 30 March 2021.

Geographical constituencies were first introduced in Hong Kong's first legislative election with direct elections in 1991. The electoral system and boundaries of GCs has evolved over time. The first popular election in 1991 used a dual-seat constituency dual vote system with two seats to be filled in each constituency, and responding to criticism, new election methods were explored, and the possibility of electoral reform was almost certain, with single non-transferable vote (SNTV) and party-list proportional representation being strongly considered. However, responding to public dissatisfication with the details, the electoral reform movement started losing popularity and, in the end, the government prescribed simple plurality as a last resort.

The problems of this system were quickly realized when the DAB obtained one-quarter of the vote and received only two out of 20 directly elected seats in the 1995 elections - the final before Hong Kong reverted to Chinese rule. The artificial majority of the democratic camp received harsh criticism from the pro-Beijing camp and the Chinese government. The same two options from the last session were brought back to the agenda; and when Chief Executive Tung Chee-Hwa came to power, he selected proportional representation over SNTV as the new system.

Changes to the electoral system of geographical constituencies are outlined as follows:

Functional Constituencies
Under the 2021 Hong Kong electoral changes, 28 functional constituencies (FC) return 30 members. The Labour Functional Constituency returns three members by plurality block voting. The other FCs return one member each with first-past-the-post voting.

The 2021 electoral reform saw the dissolution of District Council (First) and District Council (Second) FCs. 3 existing FCs were reconstituted: the Information Technology FC reorganized as the Technology & Innovation FC; the Medical FC and Health Services FC combined to form the Medical and Health Services FC. 2 new FCs were established, namely the Commercial (Third) and the HKSAR Deputies to the National People's Congress, HKSAR Members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, and Representatives of Relevant National Organisations FCs. Functional constituencies are now principally elected by body votes; the number of FCs with individual votes were reduced, together with elimination of mixed individual and body voting systems.

Election Committee Constituency
The Election Committee constituency was one of the three constituencies designed in the Basic Law of Hong Kong next to the directly elected geographical constituencies and the indirectly elected functional constituencies for the first and second-term Legislative Council fin the early SAR period. With the last British Governor Chris Patten's electoral reform, the ECC was composed of all elected District Board members who had been elected in 1994. The Single Transferable Vote system was used in the 1995 election.

After the handover of Hong Kong, the ECC was allocated 10 seats out of the total 60 seats in the SAR Legislative Council, comprising all members of the Election Committee which also elected the Chief Executive every five years. The size of the constituency reduced to six seats in 2000 and was entirely abolished and replaced by the directly elected geographical constituency seats in the 2004 election. The plurality-at-large voting system was used in 1998 and 2000.

In the 2021 electoral overhaul, the Election Committee constituency was reintroduced, taking 40 of the 90 seats, almost half, of the Legislative Council with plurality-at-large voting system. The electorate is composed of all newly expanded 1,500 members in the Election Committee.

Electoral results

 * Legends
 * ：Pro-democracy Camp
 * ：Pro-Beijing Camp
 * ：non-aligned and others

Voter registration
An individual must satisfy all the following requirements to be eligible for registration as electors in a geographical constituency:
 * permanent resident of Hong Kong;
 * aged 18 years or above as at 25 July next following his application for registration (or 25 September in a District Council election year)
 * ordinarily resident in Hong Kong, and the residential address in his application for registration is his only or principal residence in Hong Kong;
 * holds a Hong Kong identity document or has applied for a new identity card; and
 * not disqualified by application of s.31 of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap 542).

An elector can also register for suffrage in functional constituencies (FCs) if:
 * for FCs returned by individual votes, he or she is an individual member of specified associations or professions prescribed in the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap. 542); and
 * for FCs returned by body votes, he or she is nominated as the representative of a body members of specified associations / professions prescribed in the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap. 542), operating for 3 years immediately before making its application for registration as a voter.

Upon the 2021 electoral reform, electors may concurrently have at most 4 votes in a LegCo general election:

Candidacy
Individuals may be nominated during a two-week nomination period ending five weeks before polling day.

Candidacy requirement
Candidates across constituencies have to fulfill the following requirements:
 * has reached 21 years of age;
 * is a permanent resident of Hong Kong;
 * is registered and eligible for registration as an elector for geographical constituencies; and
 * has ordinary resided in Hong Kong for the 3 years immediately preceding the nomination.

In addition, candidates in all constituencies except 12 specified functional constituencies have to be a Chinese citizen with no right of abode in any country other than the People's Republic of China.

Candidates of functional constituencies have to be registered and eligible for registration as an elector for the functional constituency, or as an authorized representative of corporate electors. He or she must have a substantial connection with the constituency.

Nomination threshold
Under the 2021 Hong Kong electoral changes, candidates in Legislative Council elections across all 3 constituencies are required seek nominations from 10 to 20 members of the Election Committee.

Nomination thresholds of each constituency are as follows:

Candidate eligibility review
Under the 2021 Hong Kong electoral changes initiated by the National People's Congress, nominees for elections are screened so as to ensure the "administration of Hong Kong by Hong Kong people with patriots as the main body". A Candidate Eligibility Review mechanism is established to review and confirm of eligibility of candidates for the Election Committee, Chief Executive and Legislative Council elections:
 * Review by the department for safeguarding national security of the Hong Kong Police Force on whether a candidate meets the legal requirements and conditions of upholding the Basic Law and swearing allegiance to HKSAR of the People's Republic of China;
 * the Committee for Safeguarding National Security of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region issues opinion in respect of a candidate who fails to meet such legal requirements and conditions on the basis of the police review; and
 * Review and Confirmation of eligibility of candidates by the Candidate Eligibility Review Committee of the HKSAR.

In practice, every candidate approved to run for election to the Legislative Council is either a member of the pro-Beijing camp or has otherwise been deemed "patriotic" enough by the government of China to participate.

Deposits and refund
Each list of candidates is subject to a deposit of $50,000 for a geographical constituency, and $25,000 for a "functional constituency". Deposits are forfeit if the list (or candidate) fails to receive at least 3% of the valid votes cast in the constituency.

Rebate of campaign expenses
Since the 2004 election, the Government has instituted a system to issue a rebate to candidates of $10 rebate for each vote received, capped at 50 per cent of the candidate's total election expenses. Candidate qualify for the rebate by winning a seat or securing 3% or more of the valid votes cast, and a list of candidates is qualified if one or more of its members wins a seat or the list secures 3% or more of the valid votes cast. They are entitled to one free round of promotional material sent by post, and a chance to state their platforms free of charge on RTHK. Upon application, the Government will pay the difference between election expenses incurred and donations received, subject to a cap dependent on the number of votes cast for the candidate ($11 per vote at 2008).

title: Hong Kong legislative elections