Creative Sentencing Research Paper

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

What has society done about reforming sentencing laws in order to reduce the incarceration population? The fair sentencing Act which was signed by president Obama has helped reduce the number of inmates impacted by mandatory minimum sentencing by “reducing the disparity in the amounts of powder cocaine and crack cocaine required for the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences and eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine, it also increases penalties for major drug traffickers” (White House 2010). What the Act did was changed the ratio of Crack cocaine v Cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1 (U. S. Department of Justice 2010). This Act is beneficial because it

People in The United States have been affected by the prison system, it has saved many lives, but on the other hand, people have prosecuted for minor crimes, to end up spending a lot of time in jail, which breaks apart families for far too long, it also creates a big rift between the people of this fine nation and their distrust of the law. Back in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan has issued a law that has cut funding for the mental institutions in the United states as called the deinstitutionalization of mental health, and to show ways of how we can bring our mental health system into place. Also in the same era laws have been put in place to put harsher laws on drug offenders called mandatory minimum sentencing, some people like non-violent, first-time drug offender are being treated the same way as a drug lord, and a way that we can fix that is push laws in congress to loosen minimum sentencing. Not to forget to mention the death penalty, how tax payers are wasting our money on keep prisoners on death row. Having a poor mental health system, strict mandatory minimum sentencing, racial bias in our prisons, and death penalty laws has led people to enter our prison system wrongfully. By fixing those rules we can help our society grow, and achieve greatness by doing right to our prison system.

The determinate sentencing system provides juvenile judges with tremendous flexibility in ensuring that offenders are held accountable for their crimes, that public safety is protected, and that youth have the opportunity to become rehabilitated and turn their lives around. Determinate sentencing, under some circumstances, also provides juvenile judges with the opportunity to take a “second look” at the youth when he or she reaches adult age, so that the judge can re-evaluate the youth’s risk to public safety at that point (Deitch, 2011).

Similar to the Sentencing Reform Act, the purpose of the United States Sentencing Commission is to prevent inequity of sentencing among federal judges. It’s role is to serve as a strict guideline for Judges to adhere and limits the discretion at which a Judge may alter the length of sentence. The goal of this commission is to hamper factors such as race, sex, socioeconomic status, etc to affect the length of sentence, and aims for the guideline to stand on a neutral ground.

Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against

Aboriginal circle sentencing in New South Wales (NSW) is a form of restorative justice and was introduced largely to deal with the over representation and incarceration of indigenous people in the criminal justice system. Government programs thus far do not seem to have made a significant impact in addressing this problem. Circle sentencing was first introduced in NSW in Nowra in 2002 and was primarily based on the Canadian model of restorative justice. Research conducted on the effectiveness of circle sentencing in NSW is difficult to decipher due to the different research methods used and the way effectiveness is tested, however circle sentencing has been shown to have some success in the indigenous community. The implications of these findings

Federal sentencing practices and mandatory minimum laws are far too harsh, and ruins the lives of thousands of united citizens every year. In a modern era where the affects of drugs such as marijuana are well documented there is no logical reason that it should still be classified as a schedule 1 narcotic on a federal level. Even if it made sense in a sane world for marijuana to be a schedule 1 drug, the penalty for having it, or any other drug of the same classification is entirely too harsh. The unfair laws in place can lead to situations that no one in their right mind would consider fair or right. This is the kind of situation Clarence Aaron found himself in when he was 24 years old, and still finds himself in today. Aaron is serving 3 life sentences for being a part of a 1500 dollar cocaine deal in college. Ronald

There are many different philosophies that are in use in the court systems when determining what sort of punishment will be imposed on someone who is found guilty of committing a crime. These philosophies are in use in both the adult courts and juvenile courts. The juvenile court system is similar to the adult courts, but there are many differences between the two. Both court systems try and keep crime from happening and both courts sentence those found guilty to some sort of punishment through the punishment philosophy that the court determines is a suitable approach for preventing future crime.

Travis Williams 2/14/17 Policy Description Dr. Dillard The Three strikes policy is a criminal policy that increases sentences times for repeat offenders, usually after three serious crimes are committed. In the early 1990s, states began issuing mandatory sentencing laws for repeat criminal offenders. This policy came to be known as "three strikes laws," the name was given because it was applied when offenders committed their third offense. By 2003 more than half the states including the federal government had enforced the three strikes laws.

America holds 16.3 trillion dollars in debt and the debt will continue to increase for the next twenty years. Arizona is not far behind with the accumulating debt of 42.7 billion dollars. Arizona crimes rates has increased in the last decade and the state now has over 42,000 inmates being provided food and cells at the taxpayers’ expense. To accommodate the increase of prisoners, Arizona has the increase the spending on the prison system will ignoring methods that will cut state’s expense and the increasing crime rate. In order to ensure public safety and to replenish exhausted expanses, Arizona Legislatures should adopt a new sentencing reform that limits the cost of prisons while protecting the general

In March 1994, California voted to pass the Three Strikes Law with the majority of the vote, a bill that had been struck down multiple times by the state legislature (Naomi Harlin Goodno). This law would allow criminals with two prior felonies on their records to receive life in prison. These laws were proposed to keep serious repeat offenders off the streets, this was a result of the rising crime rate of the nineties. The law was presented to the electorate as a way to keep rapists, child molesters and killers of the streets, the most incorrigible of inmates; however, it has been proven that such laws unproportionally target minorities and persons with mental illnesses. African Americans are incarcerated at a rate thirteen times higher than

Judicial discretion was prevalent over the first half of the last three decades, but has been regulated by legislature since 1984. Discretion by definition is the authorization of deciding as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits (Ntanda, 1999). Indeterminate sentencing, traditionally, has afforded judges considerable discretion over the resolve of criminal sentencing. “While such discretion theoretically allows judges to tailor sentences to the circumstances of individual crimes and criminals, thereby achieving a sort of ex post fairness, it also permits variation in sentences that may not be warranted by the observable facts of the case, reflecting instead the judge’s own preferences” (Miceli, 2008, p.207). The punishment

Circles were found by the Native American cultures of the United States and Canada. These circles are used for many purposes. In the 1980s, the criminal justice system adapted and developed as the people of a first nation. Local justice officials had attempted to start building closer ties with the community and formal justice system. Going into 1991, Judge Barry introduced the “sentencing circle.” The sentencing circle means that the justice process will be shared with the community. The best-known sentencing circles were called the “Hollow Water First Nations Community Holistic Healing Circle.” The members of the community would gather around to deal with a high level of alcoholism. These circles represented a safe zone. Many had begun to

I eagerly would like to jump and say absolutely! However, my concern would be living in a constant state of fear. There is healthy fear and then there is fear that ruins your perspective and every decision you decide to make. Fear can cause an individual to doubt themselves and can begin to become a hermit or someone who is afraid to leave their home. What if they do just one wrong thing, accidentally, like leaving a bar after having 2 drinks, to walk to catch a cab and you are arrested for public intoxication when you were trying to be safe?