Discussion On Victim Impact Evidence In Montana Criminal Law Please hit distinguished in the scoring guide. Use my text, 6th edition. My jurisdiction is Mo

Discussion On Victim Impact Evidence In Montana Criminal Law Please hit distinguished in the scoring guide. Use my text, 6th edition. My jurisdiction is Montana.IntroductionVictims’ rights have grown tremendously over time. Victim impact statements are now widely accepted and may take the form of written documents as part of the probation department’s presentence report furnished to the court. These statements allow a victim or the family of a victim to describe their loss, suffering, and trauma experienced from the crime. Many jurisdictions also allow for oral allocution which is the right to make a statement in open court prior to the court imposing sentence. The impact of these statements on courts, however, is questionable.Although generally acceptable, there are due process limits to the admission of victim impact evidence. Such evidence that is considered unnecessarily duplicative or prejudicial may be excluded by trial courts. Trial judges must make the decision of allowing victim impact evidence after considering the relative value-added status of the victims.For your main post, locate a case addressing the issue of victim impact statements, as was addressed in Payne v. Tennessee and respond to the following:
Summarize the facts and court holding in your selected victim impact evidence case.
Examine if such evidence is not included in the statutory aggravating factors in your jurisdiction.
Analyze the constitutional implications victim impact evidence may have in the context of a capital murder offense.
Explain whether you, as a criminal justice professional, feel that the Eighth Amendment should bar the admissibility of victim impact evidence during the penalty phase of a capital murder trial.Criteria
Non-performance
Basic
Proficient
Distinguished

Main Discussion Post Response (60%)

Apply critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post.
50%
Does not apply elements of critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post.
Applies some elements of critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post.
Applies critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post.
Applies critical thinking or problem solving to the main discussion post in a comprehensive, step-by-step manner.

Use credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion.
10%
Does not use credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion.
Responds to the discussion, but some or all of the resources used for support are not credible.
Uses credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion.
Uses well- developed, relevant support from credible resources or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion and impartially considers conflicting data or other perspectives.

Follow-up Post Response One (15%)

Advance the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view.
15%
Does not respond to the discussion beyond the initial post.
Provides a substantive response, but does not advance the discussion by asking questions, assessing further considerations, or providing a different point of view.
Advances the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view.
Advances the discussion with a substantive response that contains well- supported and fully developed positions and perspectives that support or conflict with the original post.

Follow-up Response Two (15%)

Advance the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view.
15%
Does not respond to the discussion beyond the initial post or the first response.
Provides a substantive response, but does not advance the discussion by asking questions, assessing further considerations, or providing a different point of view.
Advances the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view.
Advances the discussion with a substantive response that contains well- supported and fully developed positions and perspectives that support or conflict with the original post.

All Posts (10%)

Communicate in a professional manner that is consistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals.
10%
Communicates in a manner that is inconsistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals.
Communicates in a manner that is not fully consistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals.
Communicates in a professional manner that is consistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals.
Communicates in a clear, comprehensive, and professional manner aligned with with expectations for criminal justice professionals.