Criminal Sentencing



Criminal SentencingStudent's NameTitle of the Course Criminal SentencingIn criminal law, when a person is convicted of a crime, the next step is the sentencing. There are several fundamental philosophies for sentencing an offender. Probably the one that is most often considered is retribution on. That is the philosophy that whoever commits a crime must suffer a punishment based on the seriousness of the offense. Nothing else is to be considered. Another reason for sentencing is deterrence. CITATION Ray10 \l 1033 (Patenoster, 2010) CITATION Tho08 \l 1033 (Miceli, 2008) The goal according to this philosophy is to stop others from committing the same crime when they see the results, or that the offender will “learn of his lesson” after enduring the punishment the first time, and will be dissuaded from ever committing that crime, or possibly any crime, again. Incapacitation is a rather simplistic view that by imposing a sentence on a criminal, it will keep her off the streets, and in that way, protect society. The fourth purpose for criminal sentencing is the philosophy of rehabilitation. This controversial ideology is that by “straightening out” the offender, and teaching him the error of his ways, or possibly other forms of rehabilitation, it will be to society’s benefit. CITATION Rus95 \l 1033 (Immarigeon, 1995) CITATION Tho08 \l 1033 (Miceli, 2008)Various aspects of criminal punishment are often at the center of intense debate. The fairness of criminal punishment is often called into question. Many individuals disagree about the purposes of criminal sentencing, the length of the sentences, or why there are no alternatives. While some people believe that convicted criminals should be handed a criminal sentence in order to be punished for their actions, others believe that criminal punishment should only be utilized to keep society safe. CITATION Cat96 \l 1033 (Sharkey, 1996) Preparing inmates for release back into society is another growing concern. With budgets being scrutinized for every government entity, money for prisons is difficult to justify. Therefore, most formalized rehabilitation programs are a thing of the past. CITATION Rus95 \l 1033 (Immarigeon, 1995)Many times, these different philosophies, or different purposes for punishment conflict with one another. That is often the center of the debate among citizens, legislators and other decision makers and criminal justice professionals. CITATION Tho08 \l 1033 (Miceli, 2008) The deterrence theory, as previously mentioned is that criminal laws are passed with well-defined punishments to discourage individual criminal defendants from becoming repeat offenders. But the theory also is that by witnessing the prison sentences criminals receive it will discourage others in society from engaging in similar criminal activity. CITATION Ray10 \l 1033 (Patenoster, 2010)Criminologists, judges, lawyers, and others have debated whether and to what extent any criminal justice system actually serves as a deterrent. Logically, of course, if a crime is not committed, no one really can say why. Most people in society are deterred to some extent from committing crimes not just on moral grounds, but because they know that if caught, punishment will follow. Even to somehow gauge the deterrence factors in repeat offenders is difficult to impossible. If an offender commits a crime 5 years after being released from prison, was deterrence a factor in the length of time no offenses were committed? CITATION Ray10 \l 1033 (Patenoster, 2010)Since many crimes are committed during "the heat of the moment" with no thought process in advance. Deterrence just would not play a part in preventing such crimes. Others, especially the youthful offenders, commit crimes for the fun of “getting by with it.” They do not reflect on the consequences. CITATION Ray10 \l 1033 (Patenoster, 2010) Rehabilitation, on the other hand, is the assumption that by handing out the correct sentence with the right programming, it may restore the offender to having a useful life and to be able to successfully return to society as a law abiding citizen. The goal, of course, is to prevent continual offending. Instead of just punishing a criminal, rehabilitation would, by means of education or therapy, to bring a criminal into a more normal state of mind, or into an attitude which would be helpful to society, rather than be harmful. This theory is founded on the belief that one cannot inflict a severe punishment of imprisonment and expect the offender to be reformed and to be able to re-integrate into society upon his or her discharge. And, whether anyone wants to face it, most offenders do eventually get out of prison. CITATION Tho08 \l 1033 (Miceli, 2008)There is little rehabilitation in any of the prisons, today. Budgets and the general public’s idea of “coddling” criminals has pretty much done away with any special programming, except perhaps some drug treatment programs and basic education. Little research has been done to determine whether any of the rehabilitation programs have helped. Even if a released criminal does not re-offend, there is no way to tell what the reason might be. Incapacitation is actually the basic reason for any criminal sentence. If nothing else is accomplished by an offender being convicted of a crime, the first “order of business” is to stop him, even if temporarily, from committing more crimes. Whether the sentence is a short jail term, a lengthy prison incarceration, or even a supervised term of probation or a “half-way house”, the court’s first objective is to put a halt to further crimes. The simplistic belief is that a criminal behind bars (or under some sort of correctional department supervision) cannot commit crimes out in society. It follows, then, that the longer the sentence, the longer society will be safe from the offender. CITATION Cat96 \l 1033 (Sharkey, 1996)The legislative, and subsequently the judicial strategy is to incarcerate the most dangerous offenders the longest—the murders, armed robbers, high-placed drug dealers. Society must get them off the streets for the maximum amount of time. Less lengthy sentences should then be dispensed to the offenders with the less serious offenses—car theft, minor assaults, burglary. CITATION Cat96 \l 1033 (Sharkey, 1996)Incapacitation is the basic reason for any criminal sentence. If nothing else is accomplished by an offender being convicted of a crime, the first “order of business” is to stop him or her—get them off the streets--even if temporarily, to keep them from committing more crimes. Whether the sentence is a short jail term, a lengthy prison incarceration, or even a supervised term of probation or a “half-way house”, the court’s first objective is to put a halt to further crimes. The simplistic belief is that a criminal behind bars (or under some sort of correctional department supervision) cannot commit crimes out in society. It follows, then, that the longer the sentence, the longer society will be safe from the offender. CITATION Cat96 \l 1033 (Sharkey, 1996)The legislative, and subsequently the judicial strategy is to incarcerate the most dangerous offenders the longest—the murders, armed robbers, high-placed drug dealers. Society must get them off the streets for the maximum amount of time. Less lengthy sentences should then be dispensed to the offenders with the less serious offenses—car theft, minor assaults, burglary. Retribution is a philosophical theory of justice that says the punishment must fit the crime. The victim should be satisfied as should society, by the length or severity of the punishment. It is a principle that the penalty should be reasonably proportionate to what was done wrong. This might be considered the “biblical” principal of “an eye for an eye.” This does not mean the sentence must be equal to the crime but a more harsh sentence should follow a more serious crime. This is not totally different than most sentencing laws. But, for some crimes, what is “enough.” CITATION Ger03 \l 1033 (Bradley, 2003) There is no answer for that. It cannot tell what a sentence ought to be. If someone steals $100 from a blind begger does it warrant the same punishment as stealing $100 from a millionare? Does it take the same length of years in prison to “make it right?” CITATION Ger03 \l 1033 (Bradley, 2003)Some societies have endorsed cutting off a hand for stealing, or other such retribution, taking it quite literally. But true retribution is not driven by anger, hatred, or any other emotion; as such, it is completely distinct from community outrage. Indeed, in most times and places, crime causes little or no outrage. Crime is instead treated as a part of the urban landscape, a cost of city living and it is simply tolerated and often unreported. CITATION Ger03 \l 1033 (Bradley, 2003)Conclusion Philosophies are just that. After hundreds (thousands?) of years, no one has come up with the perfect formula for either prevent crime, or punishing those that violate the criminal laws. Most of the time, the sentences handed out are a blend of the different philosophies and for all the studies done, no clear conclusions have ever been drawn. However, there are some improvements that could probably help to target which sentencing “purpose” would be best. Judges in years past, have had considerable discretion over the determination of criminal sentences, but that is generally no longer true. The sentencing guidelines, whether state or federal, dictate punishment ranges for crimes based on the offense and the defendant's criminal history. Judges are then bound, with few exceptions, to select a sentence from that range—they have no choice in most cases. And while some judge come up with “creative” ways to adjust a sentence, there is little leeway. And while judges retain some discretion under this regime, the guidelines take much of the control over sentencing back to the lawmakers, who sets the ranges. Under the guise of the “get tough on crime” platform, legislators are not inclined to let go of any of the reins which would allow courts and judges to determine sentences on an individual basis. Would rehabilitation work for this individual? Would a short sentence be a deterrent in this case? Does this person warrant a longer sentence to incapacitate him and hold him away from society? These are perhaps the questions or the solutions that would change the sentencing outcomes. Viewed in this light, the debate over sentencing guidelines can be seen as ideally balancing these competing social values. The objectives should be to decide what is purpose of any particular sentence, and then to decide, under a set of statutory guidelines, what the sentence will be. References BIBLIOGRAPHY \l 1033 Bradley, G. V. (2003). Retribution: the central aim of punishment. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy .Immarigeon, R. (1995). What Works? (criminal rehabilitation programs). Corrections Today .Miceli, T. J. (2008). Criminal Sentencing Guidelines and Judicial Discretion. contemporary Economic Policy; Western Economic Assoication International .Patenoster, R. (2010). How Much do We Really Know About Criminal Deterrence. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminolofy .Sharkey, C. M. (1996). Incapacitation: Penal Confinement and the Restraint of Crime. The Yale Law Journal . ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download