Before this law, general sentencing of a convicted individual was decided by a judge after the individual has plead guilty or if found guilty in trial. The general sentencing was decided based on the crime and the circumstances, the punishment was intended to be proportional to the crime committed (Champion, 2008). Judges were able to use their discretion on sentencing in accordance to the federal and state sentencing guidelines. However, when the Mandatory Minimum Sente... ... middle of paper ... ...for longer periods of time which eventually leads to overcrowding and overpopulation of inmates in our correctional facilities. Works Cited Broderick, V. (1998).
The concepts that will be discussed are deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and retribution. The general purpose of criminal sentencing is to punishment the convicted criminal for the crimes in which they have committed. However, there are studies that state the intent of criminal sentencing does not always center on merely punishing the convicted criminal. Jo Dixon of New York University “states the formal legal theory of sentencing predict that sentencing is initially determined by legal variables; the substantive political theory predict that sentencing is determined by legal and social status variables.” (Dixo... ... middle of paper ... ...olume: 6 Issue: 4 Dated: November Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=242575 Davenport, A.U. (2009).
The sentencing process is created by some of the legislative party, who use their control to decide on the type of criminal punishment. The sentencing guidelines for the judges to go by can be different depending on the jurisdiction and can include different sentencing such as “diversionary programs, fines, probation, intermediate sanctions, confinement in jail, incarceration in a state or federal prison, and the death penalty” (Siegel & Bartollas, 2011, p. 40). In some jurisdictions the death penalty is not included as one of the punishments. Being sentenced is step one of the correction process and is in place to discourage repeat offenders (Siegel & Bartollas, 2011, p. 40). Depending on the crime committed the offender can be sentenced to a consecutive sentence or a concurrent sentence.
TRUTH IN SENTENCING Each state is responsible for controlling crime. One area many states wanted to focus their efforts to combat crime was against violent offenders. In the 1980s, States enacted tougher punishments for violent offenders in efforts to lessen the disparity among sentences. These efforts included mandatory minimum sentences and Truth-in-sentencing. In 1994, the Violent Crime Cont... ... middle of paper ... ...ractices.
The alternative to determinate sentencing is blended sentencing, which allows judges to issue delinquent offenders both juvenile and adult dispositions. Depending on the behavior of the delinquent while serving out their juvenile sentence, a fail-safe postadjudication stage occurs to determine whether or not their adult sentence should be suspended or invoked (Belshaw et al, 2011). I personally do support utilizing the determinate sentencing for these offenders and believe that it would fail the criminal justice system not to utilize them. This is considered a heinous crime and they should not be shown leniency. At the age of 12-14, the juveniles know that murder is wrong, and the fact that this young man had to lose his life at the age of 19 over an IPOD is atrocious.
“The criminal process is part of the State’s response to crime, part of the mechanism which the State applies substantive criminal law to its citizens”. (Ashworth & Redmayne, 2005, p.2) Within this essay, I will be looking at the procedures in the Criminal Justice System. Before laying the foundations of this work, I will briefly dedicate a few lines on what the Criminal Justice System is about. A Criminal Justice System is a set of legal and social establishments for carrying out the criminal law in agreement with a definite set of procedural regulations and restrictions. In every country there is a need to shield, guard and protect people and their properties.
Many citizens do not understand the Justice system's purpose of criminal sentencing. In this essay, I will explain the purpose of criminal sentencing, the different forms of sentencing and some reforms that have been proposed to Congress. Traditionally sentences ranged from imprisonment, fines, probation, and if the crime was very serious- death. Years ago it was believed that crime was due to sin, and that suffering was the criminal's penalty. Capital punishment, torture, and painful physical punishments were the consequences.
The judicial form of sentencing granted trail judges’ the decision-making power over sentencing options (Seiter, 2011, p 57). Judges were viewed as experts in their field. Congress set “a broad range of punishments for each offense, only intervening when the need arose to address public demands for harsher penalties for crimes (Gertner, 2010, p 696... ... middle of paper ... ...know effective benefits for incarceration, besides warehousing. Many states have recognized this and have taken stronger stances toward using alternative strategies to relieve prison overcrowding and state budgets. Community policing holds the benefit to change vital perception toward law enforcement and the offending population.
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are standards that specify a stable sentencing strategy for persons and associations charged with felonies and severe misdemeanors in the United States federal courts system. The states courts handle the sentencing for their criminals, but if the crime is too serious, the case is brought to the Federal Courts. Usually, the federal courts give a tougher sentence to a criminal defendant than the states court. Most federal judges follow the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, but the state judges tend to use their own techniques to give a sentence. But there is no telling if the Federal Sentencing Guidelines can accurately sentence defendants because every criminal is different.
Some judges have abused this responsibility leading to the creation of sentencing guidelines. The Sentencing Reform Act was passed in 1984 in order to place strict guidelines on the judge’s discretion during sentencing (Rehavi and Starr 2013 p. 11). The United States Sentencing Committee wanted to keep the judge’s personal opinions and beliefs separate from the courtroom in order to create fair sentences. The creation of sentencing guidelines keeps people involved in the sentencing process in check. These guidelines have ... ... middle of paper ... ...09.