The main purpose of the sentencing is to protect the public and to ensure that justice is done. The purpose of sentencing for those 18 and over is defined by section 142 (1) Criminal Justice Act 2003
"Any court dealing with an offender in respect of his offense must have regard to the following purposes of sentencing" retribution, denunciation, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation which will all be discussed in this essay.
Retribution (1900-1905) refers to an idea that offenders should be punished for committing a crime, but would not punish someone who was forced to commit a crime, i.e. duress. It can be sometimes viewed as a ‘revenge’ or ‘an eye for an eye‘.
e.g. R v Blake [1962] QBD George Blake, a spy, was given 42 year prison sentence.
This aim is based on the tariff sentence, e.g. rape = seven years imprisonment, however, the rape of the child would increase the sentence. This is one of the aggravating factors as well as the weapon used, an intention to cause serious bodily harm, violence or a hate crime.
‘ Aggravating Factors are any relevant circumstances, supported by the evidence presented during the trial, that makes the harshest penalty appropriate, in the judgment of the jurors.‘
[http://crime.about.com/od/death/a/mitigating.htm]
However, if offenders show the remorse, give the good reason for committed the crime or plead guilty (can reduce the sentence by 1/3), their sentence can be decreased.. All these factors are mitigating factors.
‘Mitigating Factors are any evidence presented regarding the defendant's character or the circumstances of the crime, which would cause a juror to vote for a lesser sentence‘.
[http://crime.about.com/od/death/a/mitigating.htm]
Deterrence is aimed to deter not o...
... middle of paper ...
...l duty that the child must be educated. For those aged between 10 and 17 The Crime and Disorder Act 1996 created Detention and Training order where the set period must be given between 4 months to 24 months. When the offender aged 18-20 committ a crime can be locked up in Young Offender’s Institution and then at age 21 will be transfered to the adult prison. The minimum sentence is 21 days and the maximum is the maximum sentence for the crime committed. If the young offender committed a murder, At Her Majesty’s Pleasure will set time which the judge will recommend e.g. Thomson and Venables spent about 8 years in custody. A court may also make a Parenting order where the court makes a child safety order or an antisocial behavior order, when a child is covicted of an offence. Then the parent is convicted of an offence relating to truancy under the Education Act 1996.
Jurors will thoroughly inspect and weigh over the evidence provided, and process any and all possible scenarios through the elements of crime. If the evidence does not support the prosecutor 's argument and the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must pronounce the defendant not guilty. If questionable or irrelevant evidence is included in the criminal proceeding, it is the duty of the prosecutor or defendant 's counsel to object and insist that the evidence be excluded by the presiding
This paper considers the desert arguments raised to support retributivism, or retribution. Retributivism is "the application of the Principle of Desert to the special case of criminal punishment." Russ Shafer-Landau and James Rachels offer very different perspectives on moral desert which ground their differing views on the appropriate response to wrongdoing. In "The Failure of Retributivism," Shafer-Landau contends that retributivism fails to function as a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the legal use of punishment. In contrast, in his article "Punishment and Desert," Rachels uses the four principles of guilt, equal treatment, proportionality and excuses to illustrate the superiority of retribution as the basis for the justice system over two alternatives: deterrence and rehabilitation. Their philosophical treatment of the term leads to divergence on the justification of legal punishment. Ultimately, Rachels offers a more compelling view of desert than Shafer-Landau and, subsequently, better justifies his endorsement of a retributive justice system.
Serious crimes such as murder, burglary and rape have raised questions as to whether the young offenders should face severe punitive treatment or the normal punitive measures in juvenile courts. Many would prefer the juveniles given harsh punishment in order to discourage other young people from engaging in similar activities and to serve as a lesson to these particular offenders. However, results from previous studies indicate such punitive measures were neither successful nor morally acceptable. Instead, the solutions achieved have unfairly treated the youths and compromised the society status (Kristin, page 1).
The fundamental purpose of sentencing is 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 that have one or more of the following objectives:
We can see that justice is achieved when the punishment for the offender is equal to the crime he/she has committed. Therefore, a social balance is re-established and maintained within society. But, for young offenders these rules are to some extent thrown out the window.
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...
Before 1908, the nature of the developing society caused children at risk to commit crimes. In nineteenth century and even early of twentieth, there were many orphaned and negected children in the society. They came from Europe or other colonies and they could lose their parent during long time trip. The doli incapax defence, "the incapacity to do wrong" - children who under the age of seven (in some cases, the maximum was 13) were incapable to commit crime, was initially presumed. It misled that youth could be innocent when charged in every case. However, children could have the same intelligence as adults to know the consequences of doing wrong things. Thus, children who were convicted of criminal would face the same penalties and were treated as adult offenders (The evolution of, 2009, p1). However, sometimes, penalties went beyond justice – these children would receive harsh punishment for minor criminal acts.
Thus, the judge may know little more about the case than the facts necessary to support a guilty plea. When decision makers are faced with incomplete information and the predictions they are required to make are uncertain, defendant characteristics, such as the race of the offender is used to determine how dangerous they will be when out roaming in the streets. This may skew their decision and give partial sentencing verdicts.
A judge has the ability to choose to alter their decision for sentencing based on their respective state’s truth in sentencing program. Depending on the crime and the offender, a judge may decide to mandate the offender to a longer than average sentence. The judge may change the offender’s base sentence. It may be reduced to match a sentence that is similar to a non-truth in sentencing punishment. He or she knows the offender will only serve about eighty-five percent of the sentence before they are eligible for parole or released. By minimizing the sentence, the eighty-five percent served would resemble a sentence that allowed for early release (Chen, 2001, page ii). However, the judge may form a bias of the individual and use this power to order them to a greater amount of time in order to punish the person. An individual who commits a crime, especially a violent crime, would serve almost double the average sentence served (Ditton and Wilson, 1999, pages 7-8). It would also force individuals, who commit less severe crimes to serve longer sentences since they are serving the majority of their sentence. A bias of the offender, which can be based on any extralegal factor, may lead to an injustice sentence and truth in sentencing would not allow them to be released early. There are also innocent people within the criminal justice system that may be falsely convicted.
Sentencing is the imposition of a criminal sanction by a sentencing authority , such as a judge. Schmallger & Smykla, 2009, pg# 71) There are seven goals of sentencing including revenge, retribution, just deserts, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restoration. Revenge refers to a retaliation to some kind of assault and injury. Revenge can be a type of punishment for the criminal justice system. The jury, sometimes, basis there choices on emotions, facts and evidence. It is considered revenge in some cases because the victim's looks at it that way when they feel justice has been served. Retribution is a type of sentencing involving another form of retaliation. Retribution means "paying back" the offender for what he or she has done. ( Schmalleger & Smykla, 2009, pg# 73) The victim is not alone when it comes to being affected by the crime. Society is strongly affected by what a criminal does in whichever area he or she chooses. Retribution, in a good sense, would be if a coworker does her best as her job and her boss gave her a raise. This would be considered paying her back for her good deeds. As far as the criminal's heinous acts, retribution would more than likely be community service in the town were the crimes occurred. This form of sentencing gives a sort of relief to society
...hould be considered as reintegration would be easier for them. Looking into the background of offenders creates a more holistic picture of the minors allowing the jury to focus more on rehabilitation. For instance Miller a 14- year old killer was subsequently to have suffered years of abuse and violence in his parent’s home, and he had also tried to commit suicide several times (Dahl). The Eighth Amendment is crucial in the justice system as it spells out prohibition against cruelty and unusual punishment and hence the age of minors should be taken into consideration during convictions. At times, political undertones get in the way of the criminal justice system ‘ with being tough on crime’ being election pledges, but such statements ignore the need to integrate minors from poor background into the mainstream society and rehabilitation through alternative means.
In conclusion, the idea going forward for the Juvenile Justice System is that consequences for more serious crimes should have a serious consequence. You can’t have a juvenile be behind bars for their entire life, but then again a serious crime such as murder should result in a heavier sentence than a slap on the wrist.
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.
The act of participating in a crime by a minor is considered juvenile delinquency. This criminal act may be punished by many different means, designed specifically to deal with those who are under the statutory age of majority, which is the threshold of adulthood in law. However, many people argue that the severity of the juvenile prosecution system isn't high enough to order proper punishment. Therefore, juvenile offenders should be tried under adult laws. In 1899, the Juvenile Court Act was approved which established the nation's first juvenile court. It was founded on three principles: young offenders are not ready to be held accountable, have not fully developed a sense of maturity, and can rehabilitate as well as change their behavior. Now, anyone charged with committing a criminal act before their 18th birthday is considered a juvenile offender. More than ever, the country has begun to question the reliability of the juvenile courts. The juvenile court system should be abolished. It is not only too unrestricted for the juvenile offenders, but is also an inefficient response to