Determinate Sentencing: Last Chance in Texas Essay

When it comes to the criminal trial process, the last step those who are found guilty face before they are incarcerated is receiving their sentencing. There is more to a judge handing down a sentence than just giving the convicted person a time limit for how long he has to stay in incarcerated. When it comes to the different ranges of sentencing, there are five goals of contemporary criminal sentencing, the nature of structured sentencing must be understood and its positives explained, and determinate sentencing must be understood. Sentencing is not a cut and dry process. There is a lot that goes into it that many do not know about.

Traditionally, indeterminate sentencing is used in the juvenile system, which does not specify the length of the sentence, correctional officials will decide when the offender is to be released. However, due to the trend in harsh sentencing, some states have created determinate sentencing and the sentence must be served in its entirety. Some mandatory sentences exist for serious violent offenders. However, there will be offenders we cannot identify in time, those that commit acts that cannot be attributed to a "child." This group of offenders will face incredible amounts of prison time, or even pay with their life for the crime they committed.

The criminal justice system has a branch for juvenile offenders. Established in the early twentieth century; it is the responsibility of this division to decide the fates of youthful offenders. This is administered by family court with support of social workers and family. With the increased number of youthful, violent offenders, many are being processed and sentenced as adults. Important issues such as culpability, severity of the crime, accountability, constitutional rights of the offenders and victims, and probability of rehabilitation,

The purpose of sentencing is to ensure youth are held accountable for their actions focusing on a rehabilitation and re-integration approach, while ensuring youth are given an appropriate consequence. There are many differences to sentencing a youth than an adult. A young person lacks the maturity of an adult, and the youth justice system must reflect that fact. Some differences include accountability and level of maturity, rehabilitation and reintegration are strongly emphasized, increased protection on procedures, and the intervention is implemented in a timely

If is a defendant found guilty, the type and amount of the sentence will depend on a number of factors, which every judge or magistrate must consider. Between these factors belong the six main aims of sentencing (retribution, denunciation, incapacitation or protection of the public, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation), the age of the defendant (as there are available different types of sentences for young offenders), previous convictions (if the defendant has committed a crime before), the seriousness and nature of the crime committed (what has the defendant done and how serious the

While some individuals feel that exposure to an adult sanction will have a negative effect on the health of juveniles, the major crimes committed by these minors are the same as those committed by their surrounding adult inmates. The threat of adult incarceration will also repel juveniles from committing serious crimes. According to Professor Morgan Reynolds from Texas A&M University, “Between 1980 and 1993 juvenile crime rose alarmingly, and as the states toughened their approach during the 1990s, it declined just as steeply” (2005). In addition, incarceration lowers the chances of reoffending (Schneider cited by Reynolds, 2005). Enforcing laws that discourage juveniles from executing major crimes are effective in reducing crime rates and implementing public safety. Also, those that have already committed severe crimes are less likely to reoffend after exposure to adult sanction. Like Christopher Simmons, juveniles are aware of the crimes they are committing, and may even be proud of their actions. Regardless of the motive, teens committing major offenses should be placed in adult sanctions because their actions are no different than adult offenders. The intimidation of adult detention is successful in both deterring juvenile crime, and appropriately holds minors accountable for their severe offenses.

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.

Since juvenile offenders are viewed as immaturity because their brains are not completely developed, they are considered as what is desired to be protected and educated in general. Minors are believed to be competent to be held responsible for their actions. Recently, it has been debated that juvenile offenders should be punished tougher like adult offenders or should not be punished tougher. The question is whether recent treatments are appropriate or not. If not, what kinds of treatments should provide for minor offenders to clean up their criminal behavior?

The court, at the sentencing hearing, shall consider specified factors in determining the appropriate sentence and be given greater discretion in determining an appropriate sentence. This bill extracts details from the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, which entails the cautions when handling the minor in custody and as the minor is released (Illinois General Assembly , 2015). When adolescence potency extended a peak more than 20 years ago, the country lost sureness in its ability to rehabilitate juveniles. Councils passed laws permitting more young offenders to be tried as adults. Since then, juvenile

Juvenile delinquency has become a controversial issue within the Criminal Justice system. In the United States, juvenile delinquency refers to disruptive and criminal behavior committed by an individual under the age of 18. In many states, a minor at the age of 16 to 17 ½ can be tried as an adult. Once the individual reaches adulthood, the disruptive and criminal behavior is recognized as a crime. However, the criminal justice system has divided juvenile delinquency into two general types of categories that has brought upon controversial issues of inequality and corruption. Yet, putting young individuals in juvenile detentions facilities seems to open the door for them to commit more crimes in the future. Therefore, under certain circumstances juveniles should be tried as an adult.

A major difference between the juvenile and adult court processes is that the records in a juvenile court are usually sealed unlike the records in adult court process that are freely accessible to anyone under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (Lawrence &Hesse, 2010). It is also possible for juvenile records to eventually be expunged in the event that the juvenile offender is found to have met some preconditions such as god behavior. One of the major controversies affecting the juvenile court process is the use of indeterminate sentencing. Indeterminate sentencing allows for judges to individually set a maximum sentence and that juveniles are only released when the judge in question is satisfied that they have sufficiently rehabilitated or in the event that the maximum time has been served (Nurse,

Determinate sentences often contain mandatory minimums and increased sentences for particular transgressions. Sentencing guidelines provide judges flexibility, thus empowering the court to consider aggravating or mitigating circumstances when determining a sentence.

When transfer to adult court juveniles’ procedural rights may increase in adult courts, but would have multiple drawbacks for a youth. Once the juvenile has transferred in criminal court, the juvenile can be sentenced to longer punishments, lose the right to vote and received educational funding by the government and will have a criminal record that can be used against him if he commits another crime. Therefore, this juvenile is being subjected to the three strikes sentencing structure. Juveniles are also victimized in the adult penal setting in which waivers have been known to increase more crimes by the youth. Juvenile retained in the juvenile system are not more likely to reoffend than those waived youths will reoffend more quickly and more often, than those

The United States has witnessed an increase in the rate of delinquency. Since the late 1980s, the nation experienced homicide and other forms of crimes committed by children of eleven years of age (Garinger). As a way, the government passed legislation that required the imposition of sentence without parole. Later, the issue became controversial. The sentencing of children in adult courts without parole brought discrepancies because these individuals had reduced cognitive development as compared to the adults. Hence, they passed a legislation that required the release of criminals prosecuted as juveniles at the age of 21 or 18. However, later, this law influenced the sentencing of children in the same manner as the adults.

In the 1980s and 1990s adolences were committing violent crimes that caused a public outcry. The community and courts wanted to have tougher penalities for juvenile offenders. This resulted in the increase of arrest rates and the trend of “get tough” on youth crimes. Judge’s saw the increase in adolence violent offenses would be destined for a life of crime. In responses to this, all states allow adult criminal prosecution of children under certain circumstances and this can cause a sentence of juvenile life without parole (LWOP).