Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The purpose or philosophy behind sentencing
Philosophies of punishment and sentencing
Philosophies of punishment and sentencing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The purpose or philosophy behind sentencing
Sentencing Philosophies
When a judge or magistrate looks at the possibility of recidivism, they tend to lean towards a sentence structured around rehabilitation to help reduce the offender’s chance of committing crimes in the future. The decision of what type of sentence to impose and which one will work best for each individual criminal are things that come together before the court as a joint effort by many parties involved and not just the judge wearing the robe and holding the gavel. Each of the four main sentencing philosophies play a large roll in how the U.S. justice system works.
Rehabilitation
Usually police officers make the initial contact with a suspect after a crime has been committed. The officer’s report and the evidence collected makes the case which are sent to the prosecutor’s office and court. Once a suspect is found guilty or take a plea deal there is usually a pre-sentencing investigation (PSI) conducted. The PSI report normal contains items such as past criminal records, probation or parole history, pending cases, any gang affiliations, and personal background information. According the Michigan Department of Corrections “PSI reports are required by statute for all felony convictions and are used by judges when sentencing an offender.” (2015) Often victims have the opportunity to express the impact that the offender and the crimes against them have had on their lives, as well. During the sentencing portion of the case the judge receives all of this information to review and take into consideration when deciding the offender’s imposed sentence. In most cases a judge or magistrate will decide on which sentencing philosophy will work best in a case.
The judge will review all the information before reac...
... middle of paper ...
...not commit a crime again. The battle between helping too much or too little is often the case, when it comes to a stronger rehabilitation type sentence. But when we look at a retributive style sentence there are also many concerns of are we just throwing that person in jail without getting them the help they need.
The type of crime committed and the offender always need to be looked at in depth in any criminal case. Removing the racial disparity aspect of sentencing is something that will take time to overcome, but I feel can happen. There are structure and guidelines for sentencing, but judges have huge discretion when it comes to sentence they impose on an offender. Depending on the crime and the offender each sentencing option should be looked at. There is no right or wrong way here and each case should be based on the totality of circumstance surrounding it.
In today’s society, many people commit crimes and illegal behavior is nothing new. Society knows that there are criminals and they have criminal intentions. The question today is not if people are going to commit crimes, it is finding the most effective method to help those criminals reenter society as productive citizens, and preventing new people from becoming criminals. Department of corrections around the nation have implemented a program that identifies the most effective method. The “what works” movement outlines four general principles that are implemented in the rehabilitation of criminals; and, these principles are risk principle, criminogenic need principle, treatment principle, and fidelity principle.
This essay begins with the introduction of the Risk-Needs-Responsivitiy Model which was developed to assess offending and offer effective rehabilitation and treatment (Andrews & Bonta, 2007). The R-N-R model “remains the only empirically validated guide for criminal justice interventions that aim to help offenders” (Polashek, 2012, p.1) consisting of three principles which are associated with reductions in recidivism of up to 35% (Andrew & Bonta, 2010); risk, need and responsivity. Firstly, the risk principle predicts the offenders risk level of reoffending based on static and dynamic factors, and then matched to the degree of intervention needed. Secondly, the R-N-R targets individual’s criminogenic needs, in relation to dynamic factors. Lastly, the responsivity principle responds to specific responsivity e.g. individual needs and general responsivity; rehabilitation provided on evidence-based programming (Vitopoulous et al, 2012).
The complex issues of dealing with offenders in the criminal justice system has been a point of ongoing controversy, particularly in the arena of sentencing. In one camp there are those who believe offenders should be punished to the full extent of the law, while others advocate a more rehabilitative approach. The balancing act of max punishment for crimes committed, and rehabilitating the offender for reintegration into society has produced varying philosophies. With the emanation of drug-induced crimes over the past few decades, the concept of drug treatment courts has emerged. The premise of these courts is to offer a “treatment based alternative to prison,” which consist of intensive treatment services, random drug testing, incentives
Racial discrimination has been an immense problem in our society for a very long time. The fact that the race of a victim plays a role in his or her sentencing is appalling. Discrimination within our society needs to come to an end. It’s frightening to think that if you are a minority facing a capital punishment case, which you might be found guilty only because of the color of your skin.
The criminal justice system has been in place the United States for centuries. The system has endured many changes throughout the ages. The need for a checks and balances system has been a priority for just as long. Federal sentencing guidelines were created to help create equal punishments among offenders. Judges are given the power of sentencing and they are not immune to opinions, bias, and feelings. These guidelines are set in place to allow the judge to keep their power but keep them within a control group of equality. Although there are a lot of pros to sentencing guidelines there are also a lot of cons. Research has shown that sentencing guidelines have allowed the power to shift from judges to prosecutors and led to sentencing disparity based on sex, race, and social class.
Kansal, T. (2005). In M. Mauer (Ed.), Racial disparity in sentencing: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved April 12, 2005, from The Sentenceing Project Web site: http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/disparity.pdf
“Most modem sentencing systems in the United States express an explicit commitment to ensuring that a defendant 's sentence is not affected by the defendant 's race or gender (Hessick, 2010).” Even though individuals are protected through the Bill of Rights and Sentencing Reform Acts, there are still disparities in sentencing within the criminal justice systems. Often, race and gender bias negatively affects sentencing.
All three types are prevalent throughout the criminal justice system and prevent justice for all. I recommend that in order to decrease disparity in all forms, we examine each case one by one and assign a sentence that fits each specifically. We need to make a clear set of guidelines across state lines, so everyone is on the same platform and treated equally. For gender disparity, we need to tackle the societal view of females in order to show that justice and the law sees no difference in man and women. For racial disparity, we need to train all law enforcement to acknowledge that there is no one race that is more guilty than the other. For age disparity, we need to examine each case on a case by case basis in order to better serve justice to each situation; then the court can decide if it should be tried in adult court or not. Overall, disparity is a major issue that is holding our criminal justice system back from its full potential; we can do better than
Sentencing refers to the imposition of a criminal sanction by a judicial authority. Our society looks to sentencing to achieve an assortment of goals. A Legislator’s view point of these goals for punishment will affect their decisions of sentencing. The five goals that legislators consider are: retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration. Each of these goals will be discussed and how they all correspond with each other in a sentencing of the death penalty.
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.
Much progress has and is currently being made over history for the laws concerning the equal treatment, but this civil rights crisis seems like the criminal system does not follow its own laws. There are more African American males arrested and incarcerated than Hispanic or White males. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2010, the Black male imprisonment rate was 3,074 per 1000,000 U.S. Black males in total. They are incarcerated at seven times higher than Whites (The Sentencing
2010, “Racial Disparities in Sentencing: Implications for the Criminal Justice System and the African American Community”, African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies 4(1): 1-31, in this Albonetti’s study is discussed in which it was found that minority status alone accounted for an additional sentence length of “one to seven months.” African American defendants were “likely to receive pretrial release but were more likely to be convicted, and be given harsher sentences after conviction than white defendants charged with the same crimes.” One of the reasons behind this are the sentencing laws, it is seen that these laws are designed in a way that they tend to be harsher towards a certain group of people, generally towards the people of color than others thus leading to inequality with the sentencing
The sentencing process is created by some of the legislative parties, 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 requirements 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.
Community-based corrections offer a viable alternative to imprisonment. As an alternative, a community-based correction save on cost, reduces prison populations, is an effective form of rehabilitation, is humane, and supported by public opinion. However, despite the potential for community-based correction for reducing prison population, this has not been the case. Judges are reluctant to hand community sanctions, and sentencing philosophy does not support it as an alternative mechanism for punishing offenders (Mackenzie, 2001).
As the purpose of restorative justice is to mend the very relationship between the victim, offender, and society, communities that embrace restorative justice foster an awareness on how the act has harmed others. Braithwaite (1989) notes that by rejecting only the criminal act and not the offender, restorative justice allows for a closer empathetic relationship between the offender, victims, and community. By acknowledging the intrinsic worth of the offender and their ability to contribute back to the community, restorative justice shows how all individuals are capable of being useful despite criminal acts previous. This encourages offenders to safely reintegrate into society, as they are encouraged to rejoin and find rapport with the community through their emotions and