Sentencing of a convicted criminal is ultimately in the hands of the judge. Although there are standards that may be suggested for a judge to follow that work in accordance with the crime committed, by no means is a judge required to follow those suggested standards when making a decision. In the end, the final verdict is left up to the judge presiding over the case and they can do with that how they feel fit. Which is why in the case of Rhonda Kuzak, the judge has decided to go a less conventional route with her punishment. Because of the previous convictions Kuzak has on her record, a simple fine and/or jail time will not be what the court ordered. Kuzak has been arrested and convicted three prior times for possession of drugs, cocaine to …show more content…
There is no prior reason to believe that Kuzak would have been in a situation of the sorts if she were not under the influence of cocaine or at least had a deeper driving force behind her, that force being the need to fuel her addiction. Therefore, her actions are not being punished in the traditional sense. Sentencing Rhonda Kuzak to prison for her crimes, regardless of the number of offenses, will not cure her drug addiction or help her in any way. Prison time in this case will set Kuzak on an even more slippery slope than she already was. Having incarceration on a persons record is incriminating in itself, let alone at the age of twenty. Getting a job becomes harder, and staying in school does as well, because taking out loans becomes more difficult, so paying for school becomes nearly impossible. Not to mention by the time she gets out of prison she will be so behind in school for the semester that she will have to drop it entirely. Although, by sentencing Kuzak to a rehabilitation center, Judge Eskra is hoping that Kuzak will become a better person all around once clean from drugs. More like the person she has her life set up to be, without the drugs getting in the way of that. If a crime of this sort is to arise again, the punishment will not be as lenient as before and she will not be given the benefit of the doubt, under any
The Canadian Criminal Code (1995) stated the main principles of sentencing as “to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions” (s. 718). Section 718(a-f) considers the factors sentencing are to denounce unlawful conduct, to deter, to separate, to rehabilitate, to provide reparations and to promote a sense of responsibility.
Society: According to Article 3 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1980), all people have the right to security of person and with offender in prison until 2027, society is safer to a certain extent. The victim had an extensive criminal history including stabbing her husband twice in the back in 2000, contravening domestic violence charges taken out by her husband in 2002 and a plethora of driving related charges dating back to 1989 ranging from DWI’s and driving unlicensed.
The complex issues of dealing with offenders in the criminal justice system has been a point of ongoing controversy, particularly in the arena of sentencing. In one camp there are those who believe offenders should be punished to the full extent of the law, while others advocate a more rehabilitative approach. The balancing act of max punishment for crimes committed, and rehabilitating the offender for reintegration into society has produced varying philosophies. With the emanation of drug-induced crimes over the past few decades, the concept of drug treatment courts has emerged. The premise of these courts is to offer a “treatment based alternative to prison,” which consist of intensive treatment services, random drug testing, incentives
In Canada, over two-dozen offences in the Criminal Code carry mandatory minimum sentences. These offences include first and second-degree murder, a series of firearm-related offences, impaired driving and related offences, high treason, and gambling offences (Gabor and Crutcher 2001). Although there are so many crimes that carry mandatory minimum sentences, they are not the best way to reduce crime in Canada.
The criminal justice system has been in place the United States for centuries. The system has endured many changes throughout the ages. The need for a checks and balances system has been a priority for just as long. Federal sentencing guidelines were created to help create equal punishments among offenders. Judges are given the power of sentencing and they are not immune to opinions, bias, and feelings. These guidelines are set in place to allow the judge to keep their power but keep them within a control group of equality. Although there are a lot of pros to sentencing guidelines there are also a lot of cons. Research has shown that sentencing guidelines have allowed the power to shift from judges to prosecutors and led to sentencing disparity based on sex, race, and social class.
Sentencing disparity refers to the differences in sentences that are passed down in the same instances. This can happen on a variety of fronts. It can occur with judges, in different states, states v. federal, different prosecutors, among different victims, etc. (Criminal – Sentencing…2017 p.4) A more specific definition from USLegal.com states that, “Sentence disparity refers to an inequality in criminal sentencing which is the result of unfair or unexplained causes, rather than a legitimate use of discretion in the application of the law.”. There are a variety of ways that sentencing disparity affects the justice system. There are three factors that disparity looms around; they are gender disparity, racial disparity, and age disparity. (4
Sentencing is the process by which people who have been found guilty of offending against the criminal law have sanctions imposed upon them in accordance with that particular law. The sentence of the court is the most visible aspect of the criminal justice system’s response to a guilty offender. In Tasmania, the Sentencing Act 1997 was enacted to amend and consolidate the law relating to the sentencing of offenders. The crime rate in Tasmania is lower than it was 10 years ago but higher than it was 20 years ago. In the Australian context, Tasmania is below the national average of recorded crimes for the crimes of robbery, burglary and motor vehicle theft.
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
Mandatory minimum sentencing is the practice of requiring a predetermined prison sentence for certain crimes. The most notable mandatory minimums are the ones implemented in the 70’s and 80’s, hoping to combat the rising drug problem. Mandatory minimum sentencing has existed in the United States nearly since its very birth, with the first mandatory minimums being put into place around 1790. Recently, as the marijuana laws of many states have scaled back in severity, the issue of mandatory minimums has caused controversy in the US. There are two distinct sides to the argument surrounding mandatory minimum sentencing. One group believes we have a moral obligation to our country requiring us to do no less than lock up anyone with illegal drugs
When I was a kid, my parents would ground me for playing too many video games--they tried to make me go to video game rehab, but I said no, no, no! It didn’t stop me from gaming, because my parents couldn’t catch me button mashing my XBOX controller while they were at work, or on my TI-83 while at school, or playing 2048 in the bathroom. The issue was instead of telling me why I shouldn’t be playing, they went right to punishment. And just as my parents style of punishment over rehab didn’t change my behavior, our State and Federal prison system isn’t keeping XBOX controllers out of inmate 's hands… that’s a metaphor. But this problem is no joke. With over a third of released prisoners arrested again within six months of their release, and,
The problem is whether Doris deserves to be in jail and if she is a threat to society. Also, if she is still associated or in time will associate with the drug dealers. Doris was really naive when she did her crime and was in need of money. She had no idea how bad the things she was doing could affect her life in such a horrible way. She was a teenager trying to make it on her own and had had no experience of real life. She didn’t at the time believe that it was bad or dangerous but just that she needed the money. Prison was very hard on her because she was so young so she left and lived a life in fear but with the knowledge of someone more experienced. She was a good citizen and even volunteered for an organization. She also had kids and taught them to stay away from drugs. This shows that she learned from her mistakes. That’s his
... long. As it turned out, to her surprise, she was sentenced to 30 years in prison. A young lady with no criminal background was sentenced to three decades behind bars. But after the recent change in nonviolent drug charges, she had her sentence cut to 21 years, and she was released from prison. She has now returned home to her adult children. Nodd stated, “I didn’t need 20 years to learn my lesson. It would have taken me a month behind bars because it killed me to leave my kids.” Because of the old structured minimums that are set before our judges and juries, people like Nodd have to suffer unjust consequences.
The issue in this question is regarding the effect of Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) to previous English sentencing system regarding one of the aims of punishment i.e. retribution. It is a duty for courts to apply under section 142 (1) of CJA 2003. The section requires the courts to have regarded the aims in imposing sentence to offenders which has now plays a smaller role in serving punishment. And how profound this changes has been.
In my opinion, the governor should grant her clemency, since she has done a lot to show that she has been changed. First of all, the change of her means that the goal of the Criminal Justice System has been achieved. The purpose of Criminal Justice System is making the criminals change themselves and become a normal people, and Drugdealer is absolutely a successful example to change its ways. Also, if the governor
a term that they use to reference the overlapping interests of government and industry that use surveillance, policing, and