This essay will critically evaluate the accuracy of the statement "punishment should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence". Account will be made of the respective aggravating and mitigating circumstances that will have an effect on the sanctions that are available to impose on offenders. Consideration will also be given to the circumstances of the offender and to the effect that the crime has had on the victim. In theory by taking all the facts attributable to the offence into account it will be possible to ensure that any sanctions that are imposed upon offenders are proportionate to the offence that has been committed. Offenders deserve to suffer as a consequence of any crime that they have committed but the punishment should be justifiable. Only those who have offended deserve to be punished. Punishment should be neither too severe or too lenient. The purpose of the punishment is also a factor that should be taken into consideration when sentencing offenders.
The are five reasons for sentencing which are contained in section 142(1) Criminal Justice Act 2003. The courts are required to have regard to the purposes of sentencing. The purposes of sentencing are to punish the offender (retribution). Deter the offender from reoffending (deterrence). Reform and rehabilitate the offender (rehabilitation). Address the harm suffered by the victim (reparation, restoration, compensation). The protection of the public (incapacitation). The principal of retribution endeavours to ensure that the offender suffers an equivalent level of harm as has been suffered by the victim of the offence. The theory of deterrence aims to prevent offenders from repeating the crime that they have been convicted of. Sanctions wit...
... middle of paper ...
...e and proportionate to the seriousness of the offence that has been committed. That each case should be judged on the individual aggravating and mitigating factors associated with the offence and on the other individual details of the offence. The circumstances of the offender and the harm caused to the victim of the offence or to the community should have an impact on the severity of the punishment that the offender will receive. It is therefore accurate to say that punishment should be commensurate with the seriousness of the crime. However, if the purpose of the punishment is that of deterrence the offender may receive a punishment that is much harsher than expected.
Works Cited
Bagaric, M. (2002) Punishment and Sentecing: A rational Approach, London, Cavendish.
Sentencing Avisory Panel (2002) Domestic Burgalry : The Panels Advise to the Court of Appeal.
The primary principle of sentencing is stated under section 718.1 of the Criminal Code, “a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.” In other words the sentence must be fair to the offender while holding them responsible under mens rea; having a guilty mind. This idea holds that punishment has to be appropriate based on crime committed.
This paper will be focusing on the courts as the specific sub-system in the criminal justice system. As said in the book the court system is responsible for charging criminal suspects, carrying out trials, and sentencing a person convicted of a crime. The fear of crime influences criminal justice policies in the court system. One way it does this is with the courts sentencing. Courts are able to give out severe punishments as a method of deterrence. This specific type of deterrence would be general deterrence. The book says that general deterrence theory should work if the punishment is clear, severe, and done swiftly. According to this theory, crime rate should drop because people will fear the punishment. The other way fear of crime influences
Introduction Alternatives to incarceration have been explored in recent years due to the overcrowding in the correctional system. Intermediate sanctions are one of those alternatives. Intermediate sanctions have long been used in the United States due to the benefits and options that it offers from saving money to reducing overcrowding, but it does, however, have its unfortunate flaws. There are many programs within intermediate sanctions that work, and some that fall behind. Intermediate sanctions are an alternative to the costly prison system, but to what end?
The aims of sentencing include punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection. Punishment is used to punish the offender for their wrong conduct to an extent and in a way that is just in all circumstances and is intended to show public abhorrence from the offence. An example of a sentencing option that may be used to punish an offender includes imprisonment. A recent sentence imposed in the Tasmanian Supreme Court aimed at punishing an offender is the case of Michael Robert Keeling v State of Tasmania in which the judge needed to balance the need to punish the offender and the need to deter him and others from such conduct while keeping the best interests of the community in mind. Deterrent sentences are aimed at deterring not only the offender from further offences but also potential offenders. Specific deterrence is concerned with punishing an offender in the expectation they will not offend again whereas general deterrence is related to the possibility that people in general will be deterred from committing crime by the threat of punishment. An example of ...
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.
All the laws, which concern with the administration of justice in cases where an individual has been accused of a crime, always begin with the initial investigation of the crime and end either with imposition of punishment or with the unconditional release of the person. Most of the time it is the duty of the members of constituted authorities to inflict the punishment. Thus it can be said that almost all of the punishments are an act of self-defense and an act of defending the community against different types of offences. According to Professor Hart “the ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is deterrent but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime” (Hart P.65). Whenever the punishments are inflicted having rationale and humane factor in mind and not motivated by our punitive passions and pleasures then it can be justified otherwise it is nothing but a brutal act of terrorism. Prison System: It has often been argued that the criminals and convicted prisoners are being set free while the law-abiding citizens are starving. Some people are strongly opposed the present prison and parole system and said that prisoners are not given any chance for parole. Prisons must provide the following results: Keep dangerous criminals off the street Create a deterrent for creating a crime The deterrent for creating a crime can be justified in the following four types Retribution: according to this type, the goal of prison is to give people, who commit a crime, what they deserved Deterrence: in this type of justification, the goal of punishment is to prevent certain type of conduct Reform: reform type describes that crime is a disease and so the goal of punishment is to heal people Incapacitation: the...
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.
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
This essay has identified sanctions imposed on offenders including imprisonment and community corrections. Described how punishment is justified with the just desert and deterrence theory. Discussing the rate of individuals being imprison comparted to community, provided rates for assault which shows crime being maintained and community member feel safe enough to allow for this to
Johnstone, G. and Ness, D. (2007) Handbook of Restorative Justice. USA: Willan Publishing. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-big-question-what-are-the-alternatives-to-prison-and-do-they-work-419388.html [Accessed 01 January 2014].
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.
Provide the justifications for punishment in modern society. Punishment functions as a form of social control and is geared towards “imposing some unwanted burden such as fines, probations, imprisonment, or even death” on a convicted person in return for the crimes they committed (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). There are four main justifications for punishment and they are: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. There is also said to be a fifth justification of reintegration as well.
Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law since by doing so; it discourages him from committing crime again while making him or her pay for their crimes. Retribution does not mean inflicting physical punishment by incarceration only, but it also may include things like rehabilitation and financial retribution among other things. The last purpose of criminal law is to protect the community from criminals. Criminal law acts as the means through which the society protects itself from those who are harmful or dangerous to it. This is achieved through sentences meant to act as a way of deterring the offender from repeating the same crime in the future.
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.