The concept of mandatory sentencing is a relatively new idea in the legal field. It was first introduced in 1951 with the Boggs Act, and it made simple marijuana possession a minimum of two to ten years with a $20,000 fine. This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Since then, the scope and presence of mandatory sentencing has only grown, especially mandatory sentences for drug related offenses. Recently, there has been a growing concern over the use and implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing, with many believing it reduces a judge’s ability to give out a sentence that they feel accordingly fits the crime. Many advocates for mandatory
The way the criminal justice system should handle crimes has always been a debated subject. For over the last forty years, ever since the war on drugs, there are more policies made to be “tough on crime”. From then, correctional systems have grown and as people are doing more crimes, there are plenty of punishments for them. In the mid 1970’s, rehabilitation was the main concern for the criminal justice system. It was common that when someone was convicted of a crime, they would be sentenced to prison but there would also be diagnosed treatments to help them as well. Most likely, they would have committed a crime due to psychological problems. When they receive treatment in prison, they can be healed and would not go back to their wrong lifestyle they had lived before. As years have gone by, people thought that it was better to take a more punitive stance in the criminal justice system. As a result of the turnaround of this more punitive criminal justice system, the United States now has more than 2 million people in prisons or jails--the equivalent of one in every 142 U.S. residents--and another four to five million people on probation or parole. The U.S. has a higher percentage of the
the five sentencing philosophies are retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and restoration. Number one, Retribution. This is the act of taking revenge on criminal perpetrator. If an offender breaks the law he or she should be punished based on perceived need of vengeance. Two, Retribution. This corresponds to the principle model of sentencing of "just desert." It punishes based on the severity of the crime committed. The third philosophy is Incapacitation. The major goal is to provide protection for innocent members of society from offenders who might harm them. Incapacitation guarantees that offenders will not be a further threat to societies safety. Deterrence overall goal is to provide crime prevention and punishing a person
The four goals of punishment are retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation. Retribution is a punishment that when a person gets a punishment for something that they have done and to get back at them. An example for a retribution would when someone gets a death penalty for commenting a murder. Incapacitation is when a person is trying to prevent a person who already had a sentenced felony from committing any other future offenses. For example, say a person has robbed a bank multiple times and he is trying to commit it again but the authorities are preventing him doing that because they don’t want him to be sentenced a longer than what he is already sentenced for. Deterrence is a punishment for any criminal activity that is involved
The United States is less the 5% of the world population but has almost 25% of the world’s prison population (Coates, 2015; Waldman, 2016). In the last 40 years, the number of American civilians imprisoned by the United States has increased 500%. (Mauer, 2011). However, this explosion in incarceration rates has not been evenly distributed throughout the American population (Waldman, 2016). While one in seventeen White men will be imprisoned in their lifetime, one in sixteen Latino men will face this fate and for Black men, the number is one in three (Mauer,2011). Neither the racial disparity in incarceration nor its scale was accidental (Coates, 2015). The mass incarceration of Black men in the United States was a direct result of the “War
In order to address recidivism rates in this matter treatment needs to concentrate on the individuals criminogenic needs, and then be followed up by aftercare. The offender should complete all programs, like halfway houses/community residential treatment facilities. These facilities need to be empathetic, accepting, and genuine in nature for rehabilitation to occur. (Loftus, lecture)
In December 2013, President Barack Obama commuted the sentences of eight federal inmates who were convicted of nonviolent crack cocaine offenses, six of whom were serving life sentences (Miles 2014). The surge in the prison population of the United States of America can be attributed to changes in sentencing and policies that created stricter laws and harsher punishments for offenders. For the last half-century, America’s attempts to get tough on crime and wage a war on drugs have landed the U.S. the highest spot on the worldwide charts in regards to prison population; only in recent years has the rate of incarceration changed course, tracking a slow, steady downward trail. Incarceration is supposed to be punishment as rehabilitation, yet it has become the primary response to crime. It is simply punishment, greatly lacking in any true form of rehabilitation
The logic behind tougher sentencing is the longer you lock up people, the more enhanced public safety is. This put offenders in prison for years to keep them re-offending incapacitating them. Tougher sentencing is not an effective way of reducing crime because it incriminates people who commit nonviolent crimes for long periods of times, gives inadequate care for inmates with a mental illness, and it gives inmates time to learn new and effective ways to commit crimes.
The main idea and subject of this article is that parents with unjust harsh punishment techniques cause present and future issues for their children. The article discusses poverty stricken families have harsher techniques in parenting when compared to middle and higher classes. “...parents who live in poverty treat their children harshly more often, researchers say” (Inquirer 1). These punishments may have more than just some tears or a temporary wound. “When parents are too consistently harsh, their children's brains release stress chemicals…these chemicals are released when a person is in danger. These chemicals are toxic, or poisonous, to developing brains.
In the United States there are four main goals when it comes to punishment which are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). The main goals for these punishments are to maintain order over society and to prevent recidivism (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). This ties into the Ecology perspective. By maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism, it ties into all of the issues regarding the Ecology perspective which requires for each issue to address the individual, family, community and society. Maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism strives toward making a safer environment for the individual, family, community and society. There is no universal agreement for making the severity of punishment just or fair (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). When it comes to retribution the person who is getting punished deserves the punishment (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Retribution refers to when an individual commits a certain crime then that person must receive a punishment proportionate to that crime or suffering that they may have caused towards the victim (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Regarding deterrence there are two types, general deterrence and specific deterrence (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). General deterrence focuses on the society in general and wants to scare everyone away from committing crimes (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Specific deterrence focuses on criminals that have already been convicted and wants to prevent them from
Punishment is defined as “the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense” (“Punishment”). Some prominent theories of punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the moral education theory. Although retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation are all crucial components of punishment justification, independently the theories have weaknesses that avert the moral rationalization of punishment. I believe that Jean Hampton’s moral education theory is the best justification for punishment because it yields the most sympathetic and prudent reasons for punishment, while simultaneously showing that punishment cannot be justified by solely
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
Theories of why we punish offenders are crucial to the understanding of criminal law; in fact it is not easy to define legal punishment, however one thing is clear within the different theories of punishment is that they all require justification. There are many theories of punishment yet they are predominantly broken down into two main categories. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to discourage, or “deter,” future wrong doing. The retributive theory seeks to punish offenders because they deserve to be punished due to their behaviour upsetting the balance of society.