For Defendant: Snooki P.
Based on the facts provided, defendant Snooki P. will not be charged under the three strikes law. Since it is her third offense, the court finds the defendant guilty and she will be sentenced to 20 years according to the sentencing guidelines; parole is contingent.
Previously, the defendant was sentenced to 10 years with parole eligibility in two years. After reviewing the sentencing guidelines, the most reasonable sentence would be the maximum 20 years as previously requested by the prosecutors. The court had previously decided to sentence the defendant to the minimum of 10 years because, after evaluating the three strikes law, they found that the defendant’s offense was illegal but her intent was not to kill or harm, so it wasn’t necessary to charge her under the three strikes law. While the three strikes law does punish majority non-violent offenses, the court still didn’t see this as reason to punish her because they were more concerned with anyone being physically harmed or killed (Clark et al., 1997, p.1). The court did however, decide that since it was the defendants third offense, she was sentenced based on her breaking into a commercial property, obtaining items in which she didn’t pay for, and leaving minors unattended in her vehicle.
This is different from the sentencing guidelines, because the court didn’t base their decision off of the seriousness of the crime committed. The court looked at the facts of the case and made a decision that would be fairer to the defendant but still punish her for the crime. Like the original sentence, the sentencing guideline took into consideration the number of offenses the defendant had committed, but it did not consider what would be fairer to the defen...
... middle of paper ...
...ng and American Exceptionalism: The
Underpinnings and Effects of Cross-National Differences in the Regulations of Sentencing Discretion. Law & Contemporary Problems, 76(1), 161-187. Retrieved from http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cja&AN=88917157&site=ehost-live
Clark, J., Austin, J., & Henry, D. (1997). “Three Strikes and You’re Out”: A Review of State
Legislation. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs: National Institute of
Justice, 1-16. Retrieved from https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165369.pdf
Gazal-Ayal, O., Turjeman, H., & Fishman, G. (2013). Do Sentencing Guidelines Increase
Prosecutorial Power? An Empirical Study. Law & Contemporary Problems, 76(1), 131-159. Retrieved from http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cja&AN=88917158&site=ehost-live
It was intended to punish serious or violent repeat offenders so alternatives would apply to non-violent, petty offenders. The first alternative is rather simple in that the law could allow prosecutors to consider whether a defendant’s “background, character and prospects” placed him or her outside of the “spirit” of three strikes (Bazelon, 2010). This plea for leniency has been used in appeals to prevent minor offenders from life sentences. It could also be used in cases with mitigating circumstances involving the offender such as mental retardation, child abuse, or mental illness (Bazelon, 2010). Norman Williams was a homeless drug addict in 1997 when he was sentenced to life under the law after he stole a floor jack. A few years later his case was reviewed during which it was discovered that Williams grew up with a mom who was a binge drinker who pimped him and his brothers out to men that she knew. As a result of the abuse, Williams became a cocaine addict as an adult living on the streets of Long Beach, California. This information was had not been introduced at trial but after much effort he was released in 2009 (Bazelon,
The chance of reform is completely removed. Mimi Silbert, president of the Delancey Street Foundation, a half- way home for prisoners, tells the story of Albert who was sent to San Quentin Prison at age 19; by then he had committed 27 armed robberies. Under three-strikes-and-you're-out, he would still be in prison. Released at age 36, he is a caring father, works as a plumber and a substitute teacher, and has led a drug-free, crime-free life. A three-strikes law would deny this chance to Albert and to many others like him. Felons are capable of reform, but this law would deny them that chance.(Silbert)
A sentencing and punishment issue may arise in criminal procedure when two different people are given two different penalties. The judge in the District Court stated that Mr Nika should not be extended leniency because he had prior convictions. It was also noted that Mr Boka and the applicant should not be extended leniency because they had prior similar offending in Victoria for which they were not yet dealt with. Different judges pass different judgements based on their interpretation of the
Some unusual scenarios have come about due to these laws, particularly in California; some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life for such petty crimes as shoplifting golf clubs or stealing a slice of pizza from a child on the beach or a double sentence of 50 years to life for stealing nine video tapes from two different stores while child molesters, rapists and murderers serve only a few years. As a result of some of these scenarios the three strikes sentences have prompted harsh criticism not only within the United States but from outside the country as well (Campbell). Many questions have now arisen concerning the “three strikes” laws such as alternatives to incarceration for non-heinous crimes, what would happen if the state got rid of “strikes” and guaranteed that those convicted of a serious crime serve their full sentence? It is imperative to compare the benefits and the costs and the alternatives to incarceration when de...
The majority of prisoners incarcerated in America are non-violent offenders. This is due mainly to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which is a method of prosecution that gives offenders a set amount of prison time for a crime they commit if it falls under one of these laws, regardless of their individual case analysis. These laws began in the 1980s, when the use of illegal drugs was hitting an all time high (Conyers 379). The United States began enacting legislature that called for minimum sentencing in an effort to combat this “war on drugs.” Many of these laws give long sentences to first time offenders (Conyers). The “three strikes” law states that people convicted of drug crimes on three separate occasions can face life in prison. These laws were passed for political gain, as the American public was swept into the belief that the laws would do nothing other than help end the rampant drug crimes in the country. The laws are still in effect today, and have not succeeded to discourage people from using drugs. Almost fifty percent...
There are differences between state and federal sentencing guidelines. The federal guidelines are very vast and complicated (Leonard-Kempf and Sample 2001 p.113). These guidelines have been amended many times over the course of the past 25 years. According to Gazal-Ayal, Turjeman and Fishman (2013 p. 131) judges have historically had the weight and responsibility to sentence criminals in the way that they see fit. 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.
For decades, judges in the United States have utilized indeterminate sentencing. Schmalleger defines indeterminate sentences as “a relatively unspecific term of incarceration stated as a minimum and maximum amount of tie to be served” (Schmalleger p. 467). Indeterminate sentences are given in ranges such as two to five years or twenty-five year maximum. The offender will serve no less than the minimum allotted time but will be released once they have reached the maximum time of their sentence. In this case, the offender will serve at least two years in prison but are to be released once they have reached after serving five years.
Starting in 1970s, there has been an upward adjustment to sentencing making punishment more punitive and sentencing guidelines more strict. Martinson's (1974) meta-analyzies reviewed over 200 studies and concluded that nothing works in terms of rehabilitating prisoners. Rehabilitating efforts were discontinued. The War on Drugs campaign in 1970s incarcerated thousands of non-violent drug offenders into the system. In 1865, 34.3% of prison population were imprisoned for drug violation. By 1995, the percentage grew to 59.9% (figure 4.1, 104). Legislation policies like the Third Strikes laws of 1994 have further the severity of sentencing. The shift from rehabilitation to human warehouse marks the end of an era of trying to reform individuals and the beginnings of locking inmates without preparation of their release. Along with the reform in the 1970s, prosecutors are given more discretion at the expense of judges. Prosecutors are often pressure to be tough on crime by the socie...
“The Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual states that one of the three objectives Congress sought to achieve in enacting the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was “reasonable uniformity” in sentencing by narrowing the wide disparity in sentences imposed for similar criminal offenses committed by similar offenders (Spohn, 2013).”
Doubt is also cast upon the system because some conditions of parole violated constitutional rights; “…the Conservatives abolished the requirement for the Parole Board of Canada to hold an oral hearing following the suspension, termination or revocation of parole or statutory release.” (The Globe and Mail, 2016). This leads to questioning of the fairness of the criminal justice system as whole. This message is implied by Jim Bronskill’s article titled Liberals eye exceptions to mandatory minimum sentences on the Globe and Mail website as well as Kathleen Harris’ article titled Supreme Court strikes down 2 Conservative sentencing reforms on CBC’s website. These two articles discuss the same case of mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses being stuck down by the supreme court of Canada. Both frame the situation in a way that promotes the Liberal perspective. Advocating for the use of parole to its fullest abilities and removing mandatory minimum sentences not just in the context of the drug cases that were specified, but in general. In juxtaposition to that concept the conservatives believe these mandatory minimums “…send a stern warning that some crimes carry stiff penalties.” (Bronskill, 2016). In spite of that, the Liberals recognize that deterrence is
Today there is a growing awareness of repeat offenders among society in reference to crime. Starting around 1980 there was noticeable increase in crime rates in the U.S.. In many of these cases it was noted that these individuals were in fact repeat offenders. So, on March 7, 1994 California enacted the Three-Strikes and You’re Out Law. This laws and other laws like it are currently being utilized today all around the Untied States. This law was first backed by victim’s rights advocates in the state to target habitual offenders. The reason California holds the most importance on this law is due to the fact that it has the largest criminal justice system in America, and it has the most controversy surrounding this law in particular.(Auerhahn, p.55)
The jury plays a crucial role in the courts of trial. They are an integral part in the Australian justice system. The jury system brings ordinary people into the courts everyday to judge whether a case is guilty or innocent. The role of the jury varies, depending on the different cases. In Australia, the court is ran by an adversary system. In this system “..individual litigants play a central part, initiating court action and largely determining the issues in dispute” (Ellis 2013, p. 133). In this essay I will be discussing the role of the jury system and how some believe the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system, while others disagree. I will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a jury system.
Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2011). America’s courts and the criminal justice system (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
The definition of justice and the means by which it must be distributed differ depending on an individual’s background, culture, and own personal morals. As a country of many individualistic citizens, the United States has always tried its best to protect, but not coddle, its people in this area. Therefore, the criminal justice history of the United States is quite extensive and diverse; with each introduction of a new era, more modern technologies and ideals are incorporated into government, all with American citizens’ best interests in mind.
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,