Pros And Cons Of Criminal Punishment

The mandatory minimum sentencing is about a fixed ruling of a crime that a judge is expected to deliver. Congress has enacted mandatory minimum sentencing laws. It was to impose the mandatory sentencing an offender would receive for crimes that were committed. The mandatory minimum punishment guidelines would require for judges to hand down judgement for a certain length of time. This would mean that for crimes that are committed there are criminal sentencing guidelines, this would give judges a certain discretion on how to proceed in sentencing an offender. These minimum sentencing apply to many of the crimes committed on society, such as violent, drug-related crimes and for those habitual offenders. In cases where the offender commits a crime and is a repeat offender then it should be left up the presiding judge to serve out justice. People who commit low level crimes should be punished but not to the extent of going to prison for a long period of time. Congress has enacted these guidelines so that the criminal justice system would not be burden with smaller crimes or be overwhelmed. Lengthy sentencing hearings seldom are necessary, the disputes about sentencing elements must be resolved with sensitivity concern and carefulness. A dispute exists about any factor important to the sentencing determination then a judge will use his discretion to hand down equal and fair judgement. Legislator statements during debates on mandatory

Debate over capital punishment is nothing new, but it reaches a whole new level when the accused is mentally ill. The question then becomes… was the perpetrator aware of his heinous actions by knowing right from wrong at the time of the crime or was the mental illness controlling his actions? While being sympathetic to the grief and heart break of the victim’s loved ones, I believe that execution for the mentally ill should not be allowed, because often their illness makes them incapable of knowing right and wrong of their actions. Many of those with mental illnesses often go undiagnosed and untreated, either by choice or by financial circumstances, because of the stigma and general lack of understanding associated with this type of diagnosis in our society.

　 Of course, people think death penalty is not just about the punishment. People who believe in death penalty show the reason why they do is that death penalty for sure is a deterrent to homicide. They also take this as a justification of supporting death penalty system (2010). So people actually expect something out of this system other than just killing the murderers simply for what they did. This is supposed to be a great solution to make better society by lessoning the potential crime. In theory, the fact that society has a death penalty system should somewhat scares the potential murderer and prevents them from committing murder. But the percentage of murder crime shows the otherwise. Do potential murderers consider the death penalty before they the murder? The answers are likely to be No. "Most deterrence research has found that

Mandatory sentencing is a set penalty approved by parliament for committing a criminal offence. This sentence can involve any type of consequence, it normally refers to prison sentencing. All Australian states and territories have mandatory sentences, most of them introduced life imprisonment for murder after the death penalty’s abolition but, over time, most jurisdictions adjusted the minimum penalty. (Roche, 1999)

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported 6.7 million people were supervised by adult correctional systems in the United States at year end 2015. President Obama has conveyed tax payer pay $80 billion dollars to house incarcerate individuals yearly. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 limited federal judge sentencing discretions. In 1980 the USA had 500k people incarcerated, the population of prisoners has more than doubled the last two decades. The United States Mandatory sentencing requires offenders receive a predetermined minimum sentencing for some offenses. Since the implementation of mandatory sentencing, prison populations have risen sharply with sky rocking costs. On certain offenses, Federal judges no longer have discretion on the sentence length. Mandatory sentencing laws have shifted the power of punishment to the prosecutor as they have the discretion of charges brought against offenders. According to Peter Wagner and Bernadette Rabuy in their article “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2017,” the United State criminal justice leads the world in the percentage of its citizens incarcerated. Mandatory minimum sentencing has led to large prison populations, skyrocketing costs and social family challenges.

Mandatory sentencing is another form of structured sentencing, deserves special mention. Mandatory sentencing is just what its name implies: A structured sentencing scheme that man-dates clearly enumerated punishments for specific offenses or for habitual offenders convicted of a series of crimes. Mandatory sentencing, because it is truly mandatory, differs from presumptive sentencing, which allows at least a limited amount of judicial discretion within ranges established by published guidelines.

Incarceration strives to isolate offenders from society but does not provide adequate therapy to change the mental states and behaviors of criminals. The recidivism rate, the rate of known and recorded relapse into criminal behavior after release from jail, proves that offenders need more than just isolation to change their behavior and eliminate their dangers to society. Communities need not only to provide help and pay attention to offenders with short sentences because of their earlier release than others. In California, an increase in parole grants in 2014 has resulted in 2,000 murderers, classified as the “highest Criminal History Category, VI,” returning to society with no therapy or assistance from reentry programs. 80% of offenders in the most serious criminal history category, the criminal group with the highest recidivism rate, relapsed and returned to prison within five years of release, and 60% of offenders returned to prison within three years of release (Prisoners and Prisoner Re-Entry, 2007; Sanchez, 2014; Sipes, 2017; St John, 2014). Overall, police officers arrest ex-offenders up to forty-five times more than they arrest members of the non-criminal population (Przybylski, 2012). Criminals need specialized psychological treatment to change their behaviors and make them safe to return to their communities. As recidivism becomes increasingly more problematic in today's society, criminal psychologists analyze the motives, incarceration experiences, and mental

As Cass R states… “Capital punishment may be morally required, not for retributive reasons, but rather to prevent the taking of innocent lives”. Death penalty is one of those extreme punishments that would create fear in the mind of any person. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life.

Mandatory Sentencing is a court decision where judicial discretion is limited by law. Typically a crime in Australia has a maximum penalty but does not have a minimum, therefore the judge has to take into account the minimum penalty and can then from there continue to add on to the minimum penalty. For example in the late 1990’s a very controversial decision was to made when a mandatory sentence was introduced for repeat home burglary offenders in Western Australia. The NSW government has recently introduced a Mandatory sentencing law as part of a plan to minimise alcohol related violence and to deter others from the violence.

The death penalty is quickly becoming one of the more controversial topics in the United States. Currently, there are 31 states where capital punishment is legal. As of April 2016, there have been 1,431 executions in the United States, but the number of executions in recent years has been steadily decreasing (Timmons 2017). The death penalty can be put up for moral debate, and one can ask oneself whether the death penalty is ever morally permissible. There are some pros and cons to having capital punishment. For example, deterrence and prevention are good reasons to have the death penalty, but, in reality, the cons far outweigh the possible benefits that may come from capital punishment. The cost of imposing capital punishment is

The death penalty is not effective in reducing the amount of crime that occurs in our country. There is no evidence that the death penalty discourages or deters crime. The psychological mindset of a criminal is that they are not capable of thinking of the outcome or consequences of their actions when they are committing a crime. The criminals who commit these crimes obviously are not in a normal state of mind, and do not think of outcomes logically or like most people do. Criminals most likely do not sit around thinking, “I won’t commit this murder if I face the death penalty.” Therefore, the use of the death penalty does not help reduce crime, so why use it?

Alternative methods of sentencing are primarily aimed at rehabilitation, so that the offender can avoid further contact with the criminal justice system. This is an effective feature of the justice system as it allows an opportunity for the offender to show remorse and make amends and bring satisfaction upon the victims’ and society as it allows an opportunity for the victim to describe the impact of the offender’s actions on their lives. This is clearly evident in the article Circle sentencing ‘helping to keep our mob out of jail’ by Karina Marlow, which involves an alternative court for sentencing adult indigenous offenders, based on customary law and traditional forms of indigenous dispute resolution. The article affirms the effectiveness

Many people have a fear of death, many a fear of confinement. It is impossible to predict which sentence would deter the most potential murderers. With this in mind, it makes more sense to have a variety of sentences that would deter the greatest amount of people. Abolishing the death penalty may result in those who are not deterred by the life sentence continuing to commit heinous crimes. As van den Haag states, “Sparing the lives of even a few prospective victims by deterring their murderers is more important than preserving the lives of convicted murderers because of the possibility, or even the probability, that executing them would not deter others” (194).

The death penalty does not deter criminals from committing crime. Most criminals who commit crimes do not have intentions of being caught and believe that they are invincible from the repercussions of their actions. Because of this, the death penalty really does not deter criminals from committing a crime. In fact, the death penalty could be considered an “easy way out” because the criminal does not have to spend several months, years, or even the rest of his or her life behind bars with little contact with the outside world. The criminal can just die and no longer have to suffer with knowing what he or she did, how it has affected others, and how it will continue to affect his or her life. Also, many criminals end up committing suicide in prison because they do not want to have to spend every day locked in a jail cell for extended periods of time.

To do this, the punishment for crime must be harsh enough to deter potential criminals. Under this mindset, the death penalty makes perfect sense. Here is a punishment that truly makes a criminal pay for his crime, stops the criminal from committing it again, and deters other criminals from committing the same crime.