The Punishment
After having been arrested and charged with the killing of my children’s father, I was subsequently convicted of first degree murder, PC§187a (CA Codes). The sentencing guidelines, here in California, require a judge to adhere to PC§190a which states that, “Every person guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death, imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole, or imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 25 years to life (CA Codes). I had serious concern toward the possibility of falling under PC§190.2a which asserts that, “The penalty for a defendant who is found guilty of murder in the first degree is death or imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole if one or more of the following special circumstances has been found under Section 190.4 to be true” (CA Codes). I was disconcerted with the fact that PC§190.4(14) was an enhancement that had been examined. This implied that my actions may have carried a tortuous value (CA Codes). I recognize the factors of my being a young, white female with no previous criminal record as likely having carried a heavily weighted value. Ultimately, I was sentenced (punished) by the county of Sacramento to 25 years to life with the possibility of parole. This was the preferred sentence, in my opinion, as it could have been much harsher if not for the Judge’s discretion. As for my future, it is now being shaped by the criminal justice system.
My sentence has been put into place as an individual punishment based upon my actions, yet there is so much more to it than that. Several perceptions towards how and why a criminal should be punished have been acknowledged over the years. Today, there are t...
... middle of paper ...
...trieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/214413157?accountid=10358
Bronsteen, John. (2009). “Retribution’s Role.” Indiana Law Journal. 84th edition. Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic CA Codes. (n.d.). CA Codes. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&ffile=187-199 CDCR. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (n.d.). CDCR - Central
California Women's Facility (CCWF) - Home Page/Mission Statement. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/FacilitiesLocator/CCWF.html
Hemmens, C., Brody, D. C., & Spohn, C. C. (2013). “Sentencing”. Criminal courts: A
Contemporary Perspective (2nd edition, pp. 357-400). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Packer, H.L. (1968). The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
The Punishment Imperative, a book based on the transition from a time when punishment was thought to be necessarily harsh to a time where reform in the prion system is needed, explains the reasons why the grand social experiment of severe punishment did not work. The authors of the book, Todd R. Clear and Natasha A. Frost, strongly argue that the previous mindset of harsh punishment has been replaced due to political shifts, firsthand evidence, and spending issues within the government. Clear and Frost successfully assert their argument throughout the book using quantitative and qualitative information spanning from government policies to the reintegration of previous convicts into society.
Every civilization in history has had rules, and citizens who break them. To this day governments struggle to figure out the best way to deal with their criminals in ways that help both society and those that commit the crimes. Imprisonment has historically been the popular solution. However, there are many instances in which people are sent to prison that would be better served for community service, rehab, or some other form of punishment. Prison affects more than just the prisoner; the families, friends, employers, and communities of the incarcerated also pay a price. Prison as a punishment has its pros and cons; although it may be necessary for some, it can be harmful for those who would be better suited for alternative means of punishment.
Notwithstanding issues of morality, the death penalty process of California is financially inefficient and ineffective. At the current rate of executions, “it would take 1,600 years to execute everybody on death row.” [The Death of the American Death Penalty, 122] The average delay in implementing a death sentence calculates out to be 25 years, at an added cost of $90,000 per year over normal incarceration. [Guy, 2] This is a “premium that currently totals more than $60 million a year” [Guy, 2]. When you take the added costs of death row incarceration and total them up with the additional costs of prosecution and the handling of the many legal appeals death row inmates are entitled to, the unnecessary amount of spending is significant. We could eliminate “$126 million a year” in additional costs by simply sentencing death row inmates to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. [Guy, 2] Because of the afo...
The collateral consequences of criminal convictions rather than the direct result are known as “invisible punishments”. In his article “Invisible Punishment”, Travis discusses the unintended consequences that punishes an individual beyond the formal sentence. Criminals are not only punished once for their crimes, they are punished twice, and these invisible punishments follow them throughout their lifetime. Travis explains that these punishments are a form of “Social exclusion”, not purposely designed but merely due to operation of law.
The judicial system is based off the norms and values that individuals are held to within society. When a person is found guilty of committing a criminal act, there must be a model that serves as the basis of what appropriate punishment should be applied. These models of punishment are often based off of ethical theories and include retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration. The retribution model of punishment views the offender as responsible for their actions and as such, the punishment should fit the crime (Mackie, 1982). Incapacitation is a form of punishment that removes an offender from society. This model protects
This type of legislation has been devised to allow for the detention of people based upon assessments of risk of re-offending, this essay will explore the concerns with these practices. This essay further aims to explore the moral and practical implications of such sentencing provisions and the impact it has on the whole Justice System. The writer will also address the conflicting goals of Corrections and the purpose and impact of indefinite sentencing while exploring the justifications against such legislation. This essay also aims to show that even though we may feel disgust for these types of offences we must remember the fundamentals of the Criminal Law system and understand that people are entitled to equality and fairness in the eyes of the law.
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.
For centuries, prisons have been attempting to reinforce good behavior through various methods of punishment, some more severe than others. There are several types of punishments which include “corporal punishment, public humiliation, penal bondage, and banishment for more severe offenses, as well as capital punishment”(Linklater, V). Punishments in which are more severe pose the question “Has it gone too far?” and is stripping away the rights and humanity of a criminal justified with the response it is for the protection of the people? Is justice really served? Although prison systems are intense and the experience is one of a kind for sure, it does little to help them as statistics show “two-in-five inmates nationwide return to jail within three years of release”(Ascharya, K).
Society has long since operated on a system of reward and punishment. That is, when good deeds are done or a person behaves in a desired way they SP are rewarded, or conversely punished when behaviour does not meet the societal norms. Those who defy these norms and commit crime are often punished by organized governmental justice systems through the use of penitentiaries, where prisoners carry out their sentences. The main goals of sentencing include deterrence, safety of the public, retribution, rehabilitation, punishment and respect for the law (Government of Canada, 2013). However, the type of justice system in place within a state or country greatly influences the aims and mandates of prisons and in turn targets different aspects of sentencing goals. Justice systems commonly focus on either rehabilitative or retributive measures.
During the 1970s, the top argument in favor of the death penalty was general deterrence. This argument suggests that we must punish offenders to discourage others from committing similar offenses; we punish past offenders to send a message to potential offenders. In a broad sense, the deterrent effect of punishment is thought to b...
punishment is an asset to society: it is the only punishment that fits the crime, it deters potential criminals
By viewing the justice system from an equal justice perspective, truth in sentencing does not account for the criminal offender’s motives for breaking the law. A judge may believe it is morally right to lessen the punishment of an offender, who had good intentions for committing the crime. An individual may be placed in a circumstantially difficult situation, which could force them to commit a crime. Unfortunately for those individuals, truth in sentencing in the equal justice perspective does not allow for the judge’s discretion in that case. Therefore, if two people commit the same crime, yet one had negative intentions, he or she would face the same punishment as someone who did not have these intentions. A judge loses this power consider motive because all criminals of the same crime are viewed as equal. By restricting a judge’s discretion, it creates injustice within the courts. Actions are based on their motives and a judge should have the ability to consider it when making a decision that can greatly impact another individual’s life. Therefore, truth in sentencing and the equal justice perspective need the discretion of a judge to justly establish a fair sentence that accounts for all aspects of the individual and their
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,
Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the law by individuals then that individual should be punished accordingly.