Model For Criminal Sentencing

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.

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 This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.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

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

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.

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

When a person has been found guilty of a crime a judge must determine a sentence that they must receive and then sentencing is given out by a judge. Each year there are thousands of criminals that appear before a judge or judges to be sentenced for their crimes committed. Sentencing descriptions are primarily for felony offenses, or those that are punishable by less than one year of incarceration. Obligatory minimum sentences, three strikes laws and sentencing recommendations commonly involve specific sentences, with little to no thought of personal factors regarding offenders, their crimes, and victims.

We jail a grand amount of the population most times, who don’t necessarily produce any harm or those who have not committed violent crimes. Most arrest, convictions, and sentencing are a product of drug related issues. “Sentencing policies of the War on Drugs era resulted in dramatic growth in incarceration for drug offenses” (The Sentencing Project, 2016, p.3).

Sentencing criminals in court is not the easiest thing to for anyone involved, it’s usually a lengthy process that must go through examining evidence, interviewing witnesses and of course listening to the defense. When an offender has been found guilty, a judge must decide what their retribution will be, usually referring to set guidelines. These guidelines help judges decide what punishment would be best based on the offense, criminal history, whether a weapon was used, and many other facts. These judges follow what is known as the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (Champion 111).

Sentencing guidelines are a mechanism used to apply determinate sentencing. They are a set of standards that are put in place to establish rational and consistent sentencing methods. These are set for cases that were tried because of racial disparities and biases in the courts. They are set in particular jurisdictions. These guidelines were put in place to limit the discretion of the judicial system and limit the disparities that are present in the courts as well as to promote more rational and informed sentencing policies. In addition, these guidelines are a system of recommended sentences that are based upon offender and offence characteristics. Offense characteristics are rules that set the standards for the seriousness of the offense in most sentence guidelines. This classification is typically based on how the crime is seen by legislatures. It is not determined on how the offender committed a certain crime. For example, theft that occurred on an unoccupied building would be categorized as less serious than assault with a weapon. The characteristics of an offender are things that are unique to the individual. These could be things such as the number and type of past offenses whether they are felonies, misdemeanors, or juvenile delinquencies. In other instances, they can be whether an offender was under a custody status at the time of the offense (Frase & Mitchell, 2016). The characteristics of both of these entities are then placed on a

Creative sentences for juveniles fluctuate case to case and is strictly based upon the judges will. Creative sentencing includes but is not restricted to probationary sentences (house arrest, supervised probation, unsupervised probation), community service (picking up trash, volunteering, helping others), and or completing a GED if the individual dropped out of school. The majority of judges recognize that juveniles make mistakes or are with others who make bad choices. Depending on the severity of the crime, judges may chose a creative sentence for the individual instead of a harsher punishment.

In 1973, New York State passed the first harshest statewide anti-drug law in the country. Named after New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, the Rockefeller Drug laws required a mandatory lengthy prison sentences for all felony-level drug and possession offenses. The intent of lengthy prison sentence was meant to deter drug abuse and drug crimes. Between 1970s and 2000s, the Prison population tripled from 11 percent (12,579) in 1973 to almost 35 percent (70,154) in 2008 (DCJS, 2011; Feinblatt, Berman & Foxx, 2000). The overcrowding of prison in response to drug-related crime created a new opportunity for reformers to find alternative ways in treating drug offenders instead of placing them in prison. As drug courts began to grow exponentially during the 1990s, advocacy groups led the charge in coordinating efforts to lobby efforts in reforming the Rockefeller sentencing. In 2009, under Governor Paterson, the State legislature enacted legislation that shifted away from mass incarceration towards a public health model.

Alternative sentencing has always been a consent debate due to the rise of corporation run prisons; many agencies argue that with our current prison system is void of human rights, promotes detrimental social impacts and the cost of imprisonment. Since the 1970's offering parole and probation options as an alternative helped reduce prison overcrowding. Lawmakers needed to develop new options for sentencing criminal offenders and enforce alternative correction programs, that would provide local courts, state departments of corrections, and state parole boards with a broad range of correctional options for offenders. When lawmakers discussed alternatives to incarceration they noted that there was a need to achieve the following goals rehabilitation,

In the United States, the sentencing model has changed several times over the course of 100 years (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2015). A sentencing model is composed of strategies for implementing sanctions in criminal cases. Currently, judges have far less ability to use their own discretion when determining sentencing for offenders as compared to earlier judges in the United States. There are guidelines in place today that instruct judges on how to issue sentences. Early on in the United States guidelines for sentencing were experimented with, they were referred to as voluntary guidelines because they were not a requirement of the laws at the time. Those guidelines failed due largely because judges at the time ignored them.

There are five different categories of sentencing Del Carmen (2012) begins to name them and explain the precise goals they target as well as the objectives they accomplish. Beginning with the death penalty, it is the most harsh form of punishment in the sentencing field. It sentences individuals that had committed a capitol murder or any other major crime to death. The next type of sentence would be imprisonment. Imprisonment is a type of sentence that is split up into two subcategories which are jail and prison. Prison is an ideal punishment for all felony offenders in which incarcerates the inmate for a fixed amount of time ranging from a year to eternity. Jail is an ideal place for misdemeanor offenders who could be incarcerated for a maximum

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