Purpose Of Indefinite 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.

“Lock them up and throw away the key” – that is usually the headline when in regards to offenders going to prison. However, billions of dollars are going into maintaining prisons, yet the rate of recidivism is around 44% (Pearsons, 2011), so it is clear that prisons are no longer effective. The main argument of this paper is that because prisons are inefficient, they should be abolished so other forms of punishment can be found and acted upon. Firstly, this paper will discuss the function of prisons in regards to penal abolition. Also, it will identify what penal abolition is and explain three alternatives to prison – housing alternatives, restorative models, and

The second supporting argument that Parliament imposes the judiciary to place too much emphasis on incarceration is characterized by the reduction of credit for pre-sentence custody credit. Fortunately, this was amended in 2014. The Truth in Sentencing Act, one of the government’s early “tough on crime” laws was passed in 2009, but became operative on Feb. 22, 2010. This Act contributed to the changes regarding the credit offenders received for pre-sentence detention or “dead-time,” that does not count towards any parole or early release eligibility. This curbed judge’s ability to give a break on sentencing when a convicted offender has spent lengthy time in pre-trial jail custody. This discount in sentencing had evolved to recognize that

The general deterrence theory and specific deterrence theory are two explanations or rationales as to why the policy of life imprisonment was introduced [5]. Firstly, life imprisonment may have been introduced to show a demonstration effect. This is based on the idea that when we see others who have been caught and punished, it is assumed that we will not do the same thing they have done. It is based on the idea that someone who commits an offense sets an example for the rest of society. Another explanation for the introduction of the policy may be based around specific deterrence. This is the idea that the actual person experiencing punishment and retribution will encourage them to make a different choice if released [4]. Offenders will think twice before doing it again, however there are limitations to this theory. For example, research shows that when punished, sometimes offenders get attention and punishment gives offenders recognition. Finally, it is the notion of the severity of the punishment. For example, as a punishment becomes more severe, the less likely people are to engage in it. Therefore, severe punishments such as life sentences may result in less people to engage in severe crimes. In culmination, it is the laws surrounding the Criminal Code of Canada that govern these severe crimes by

Responsibility of offenders can be considered to have arose as part of the ‘Just Deserts’ in which is fundamental to it rational in two ways. First, the need to sentence individuals for the crime committed rather than sociological or behavioural issue that may have been a factor in the offender committing the crime. Secondly, under the concept of proportionality in which the sentence is proportionate to the crime. At this point a very subtle difference in sentencing had an impact on the way probation was viewed because non-custodial sentences became recognised as an alternative to prison rather than an alternative to punishment (Worrall, 2006). Thus, probation was regarded as a punishment in its own right which is

Sentencing in the judicial system forced a sentencing for a definite term indicating a fixed time sentencing, which gave the defendant a fixed number of years to serve (Siegel, L. 2014). For example, the sentencing could be up to 20 years for robbery or a repeat offender could serve a 15 year term or a robbery with less violations might receive as little as 5 years (Siegel, L. 2014). Determinate sentencing actually reduced imprisonment (Siegel, L. and Bartollas, C. 2014).

The ongoing role of prison within the UK Criminal Justice System is becoming increasingly unclear. On the one hand in the 21st century, it is considered to be a “state strategy for crime control, a deterrent for those contemplating crime and punitive response for those who have broken laws”McAvinchey (2011 pg.10). On the other hand, it is also supposed to have a rehabilitative purpose, the intended role of a prison is to rehabilitate the offender so that when they have completed their prison sentence, they can be successfully rehabilitated back into the community and live a crime free fulfilled life. Yet, when examining the vital statistics that underline an increase in prisoner population, it is clearly apparent that the system neither

What is the expectation when someone commits a crime? Many would say that offenders require strict punishment including harsh sentencing moreover that rehabilitation is without value. Two conflicting views are being examined from Eugene H. Methvin, who is a supporter of mandatory sentencing as well as ‘three strikes’ sentencing that can result in life sentences being mandatory for repeat offenders even if they are non-violent crimes. On the other hand, is David Shichor, who supports sentencing that is efficient and fair especially since harsh sentencing does not reduce crime. Two works are reviewed, Eugene Methvin is his paper Mugged by Reality and David Shichor in his Three Strikes as a Public Policy.

If I were a senator for the State of Tennessee, and I had to propose a bill for indeterminate sentencing one of the strengths I would point out would be saving money. Some offenders go to prison and get their GED, they learn a trade, they do specific classes to help them upon a release, and they have no write-ups. If the parole board chooses these people may be released early therefore opening up a bed to a more violent offender, or someone who is just not going to change. The judge can sentence people to 5 to 10 years if the person does all the programs that they can, get an education, and don't get any write-ups they can get out in 5 years. If that person is not taking classes, they do not work while in prison, and they are constantly getting

What is the expectation when someone commits a crime? Many would say that offenders require strict punishment, as well as harsh sentencing without the benefit of rehabilitation. Two conflicting views are examined, they are from Eugene H. Methvin, who is a supporter of mandatory sentencing as well as ‘three strikes’ sentencing that can result in life sentences being mandatory for repeat offenders even if they are non-violent crimes. On the other hand, is David Shichor, who supports sentencing that is efficient and fair, objecting punishments that only attend retribution, especially since they do not contribute to the lessening of crime commission. Reviewed are two works, that of Eugene Methvin is his paper Mugged by Reality and David

All crimes are not conducted with the exact process and mind behind it, which is why it is essential for a variety of sentencing options presented to court to maintain a just criminal system. The extensive array of sentencing options provides judicial benefits as they ease the selection process as he/she are not limited to one particular sentence but can impose a suitable punishment corresponding to the nature of the crime. When courts have these other options available, they can tailor a cost-effective sentence that suits the crime and offender. Incarceration (imprisonment) is a famously common sentence among the system however this traditional approach can be replaced by many alternatives that could be selected when imposing a sentence.

The legal system is reliant on two different approaches for sentencing the offenders. The determinate and indeterminate sentencing is discussed in detail. The recent trend towards determinate sentencing and their impacts are also elaborated. The reasons for choosing determinate sentencing and its role in reducing recidivism are also discussed in the following sections. The political influence on these changes has also brought it in public domain and several opinions in favor and against prevail in the ordinary public as well as the legal practitioners.

The main purpose of the sentencing is to protect the public and to ensure that justice is done. The purpose of sentencing for those 18 and over is defined by section 142 (1) Criminal Justice Act 2003

Therefore it is clear that long and harsh prison sentences are not entirely effective. I think harsh prison sentence should be for people who commit more serious crimes such as assault or murder as justice for the victim. The government could focus on what is causing crime which would lead to less crime future and community service would be a way for offenders to give back something positive to the community.

To begin with, it is necessary to say that punishment is an integral part of modern countries’ legal systems, because countries have a duty to protect society from wrongdoers and authorities could reach success in it by punishing offenders. Oxford English Dictionary defines punishment as the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence. There are four main purposes of punishment – incapacitation, deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation – and the aim of this paper is to