Five Factors Of Sentencing In The United States

This paper discusses three critical issues in the criminal justice system. It touches on the general issues of punishment philosophies, sentence decision making, and prison overcrowding and focused more specifically on the negative effects of each. Highlighted in this informational paper is the interrelated nature of the issues; each issue affects and is affected by the others. Data and information has been gathered from the FBI Uniform Crime Report, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Amnesty International, the NAACP Legal Defense

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

Judges and magistrates must consider a wide variety of factors when determining a sentence for an offender. Primarily, the sentence must coincide with the statutory guidelines e.g that set out in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and the judicial guidelines that set precedent for all judges and magistrates in the state. Within this legislation are the purposes for which a sentence may be imposed, types of penalties, minimum/maximum sentences and mandatory sentences.

The United States prison population has grown seven-fold over the past forty years, and many Americans today tend to believe that the high levels of incarceration in our country stem from factors such as racism, socioeconomic differences, and drugs. While these factors have contributed to the incarceration rate present in our country today, I argue that the most important reason our country has such a high incarceration rate is the policy changes that have occurred since the 1970s. During this time, the United States has enacted policy changes that have produced an astounding rise in the use of imprisonment for social control. These policy changes were enacted in order to achieve greater consistency, certainty, and severity and include sentencing laws such as determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three strikes laws (National Research Council 2014). Furthermore, I argue that mandatory sentencing has had the most significant effect on the incarceration rate.

Secondly, they should be addressed the needs of offenders and the deficits in their lives that contributed to their offending. And thirdly, sentences should not be severe, intrusive, or damaging to an offender’s later decarceration to live a righteous life than is minimally necessary to achieve valid purposes of the sentence he or she receives (Tonry 508). An addition to these are proportionality, which means that sentences should correspond in severity to the seriousness of the crimes which they are inflicted. Also, regularity, which signifies that sentences should be guided by official standards to make the process clear, procedures fair, and allow judges to be more accountable (Tonry 508). Moreover, the American Criminal Code must be taken into consideration. Two features must be altered if the sentencing is to become fair, effective, and just. Firstly, the harsh sentencing laws must be revoked, and secondly the limits, that matches the offense seriousness, must be put on the lawful sentences (Tonry 514). Moreover, Tonry mentioned about future changes that, “If adopted, they would greatly reduce the number of people in prison in future years, but their adoption would not significantly reduce the scale of American imprisonment in 2015 or in 2020. Doing that will require enactment of new laws authorizing reconsideration of sentences now being served (Tonry 523).

2014). The official authorities in office that make legal decisions and judgments that are using indeterminate sentencing often employ statutes that identify clearly minimum and maximum terms (Siegel, L. 2014). Equally, they also permit judicial discretion to fix the actual sentence given within these guidelines (Siegel, L. 2014). Even though rehabilitation and parole have been under heavy attack by those who argue that criminals should be punished and not overprotected (Siegel, L. 2014). When said and done the indeterminate sentence is still the most widely used types of sentence the determinate sentencing continues to be favored in nearly one-third of the states (Siegel, L. and Bartollas, C.

When a person is convicted or pleads guilty, the judge will decide on the appropriate sentencing. In the sentencing process it can go from criminal offenses, can also range from probation and community service to prison and even the death penalty. The judge will decide what type of punishment is needed for the crime violated.

The supreme court made a ruling that determined that one’s punishment must be equal to the crime committed due to the eighth amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. “The Court has attempted to simultaneously satisfy its moral inclinations and the text of the Constitution, but these efforts have resulted in an inconsistent and confusing Eighth Amendment Punishments Clause jurisprudence” (Ryan, 2010, p. 569).

As a general rule, a sentencing judge decides punishment shortly after a person pleas guilty or a jury finds him guilty. Punishments are intended to be proportional to the crime, so state and federal sentencing guidelines suggest a range of sentences appropriate for various types of crimes. When the crime is subject to a mandatory minimum sentencing law, the judge has much less discretion in setting the punishment. If the defendant pleads guilty or a jury finds him guilty, the judge will sentence the defendant to at least the minimum sentence set by law. The judge is not permitted to impose a shorter sentence, even if there are facts that would normally provide a reason for leniency. The judge must ignore those factors.

Mandatory sentencing involves the implementation of legislation to remove an element of judicial discretion by imposing minimum or mandatory sentences for a particular offence or type of offender. From the perspective of society, mandatory sentencing may be said to promote the rule of law in ensuring that laws are predictable and applied equally across all individuals by aiming to match the punishment to the crime, as well as reduce crime and recidivism. Depending on the outlook taken, mandatory sentencing may be said to promote the individual’s right to a fair trial as it encourages consistency but by the same token a conflict arises in that it strips the judiciary of the power to tailor sentences to the unique circumstances of each case.

A major issue in criminal justice is sentencing. America’s court system has struggled to balance competing goals and policies in regards to criminal sentencing. This paper explores the ideas behind changes made to the sentencing policies with the United States judicial system. It begins with an overview of the goals behind criminal sentencing. This paper concludes with a discussion on the current status and disparities involving criminal sentencing.

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

Another critical area of sentencing and punishment are the Statutory (Federal) Guidelines for sentencing which are contained in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, Judiciary powers refer to this legislation when deciding on an offender’s prison sentence. It contains the directive of ‘minimum mandatory sentencing’; an automatic sentence that must be imposed by the judicial officer for particular offences, a statutory guideline which overrules Judicial rule and can potentially jeopardises a judge's discretion and ability to consider mitigating factors.

However, there have been several attempts across the country to limit the ability or discretionary power of judges through legislative actions. These actions require minimum or maximum prison sentences, as well as setting sentencing guidelines to achieve a more fair sentencing process in an attempt to reduce racial and gender disparity (Siegel & Bartollas,

The sentencing is a penalty imposed on offenders, the purpose and goals are determining a sentencing to justifying the crime the offender committed. The purpose also serves as punishment to the defendant for what he/she has done to the victim. The court structures and sentencing in comparison is alike in many ways on how the courts handle the sentencing. The American court system deal with criminals in various levels of courts and the court system handle the sentencing the same but the outcome of the case may be may be loner depending on the seriousness of the crime committed. The American court systems all serve the same purpose when come to handling sentencing and that is getting justice for the victim. There are several sentencing goals such as: retribution, incapacitation, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation and restoration. The all have different purpose and in the American court system. (Frank Schmalleger Criminal Justice a Brief