Sentencing Is The Final Stage Of The Criminal Justice Process

The fourth argument in favour of the criminal justice system is that it strives to facilitate a better understanding, for citizens, on how decisions are made at each stage while an investigation into a crime and trial proceedings are in progress. It is important that citizens understand the criminal law and order process so they can contribute effectively as witnesses and victims of crime which is fundamental to decisions made about prosecutorial screening and police investigation into a crime (Daly, K. et al, 2006). It is also found that it is crucial that the processes that make up the criminal justice system are followed, to eliminate the likelihood of serious distortions in a criminal case. For instance, although matters concerning sentencing, criminal law and procedures are separate to each other, it becomes important for the citizen to identify them and their functions so essential values in each of these areas are well known and therefore held accountable by society (Smith & Natalier, 2005, p.45). This knowledge will facilitate society to ascertain if each department is allowed to operate independently but in line with the laid down policies, hence the law being applied amicably (Bryett et al,

After a defendant is convicted or pleads guilty, a judge will then decide a suitable punishment (or sentence) during the sentencing phase of a criminal case. There are varying outcomes that can influence sentencing offenders, they can range from probation and community service to prison and even the death penalty. Minor infractions, misdemeanors, or offenders who plead guilty usually get sentenced almost immediately after ones convictions. In complex criminal cases such as serious felonies, the sentencing judge will usually receive input from the probation department which prepares a pre-sentence report with recommendations. Prosecutors and the defense will also speak to the judge regarding to ones convictions. There are several factors that a judge can choose from when determining a criminal sentence. These include: Does the offender have prior criminal history; Was the offender an accessory or the main offender; Was the offender under any personal stress or duress when the crime was committed; Was anyone injured; Was the offender cruel to a victim, or destructive in nature, did the offender display remorse or regret for crimes. However, not every conviction means a trip to prison. Judges in most cases have a great deal of discretion when determining a sentence. Some of these alternative sentences can include suspended sentences, community service, probation, deferred adjudication, and even fines or restitution. Furthermore, multiple sentences can be served

Discuss factors that affect sentencing decisions, including the purposes of punishment and the role of the victim

In the article “Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: A Failed Policy,” the author highlights how mandatory minimum sentencing is a policy that has failed in attempt to put an end to drug crimes. Batey stated that the attempts of federal and state thought that they could “get tough on crime,” particularly drug offense, by eliminating the sentence discretion of judges and restoring it with long minimum sentences that applied regardless of defendant's individual circumstances (Batey 24). Moreover, the mandatory minimum sentences take authority away from the judge and give it to the prosecutor, who decides whether to charge the defendant with a crime carrying a long minimum sentence or much less offense. Withal, mandatory minimum sentences have failed due to giving America’s power too much power in plea bargaining, an imbalance that has led to the incarceration of persons too fearful to insist on a hearing that might have released them (Batey 25). Finally, Batey mentions that mandatory minimum sentence policy has filled prisons with the wrong people, which are minor players, not drug kingpins, and even some who are innocent (Batey 25).

This essay explains sentencing in the United States Criminal Justice system. The objectives of punishment in the United States corrections is to help deter crime and to ensure reoffenders don’t reoffend. Sentencing impacts the corrections system and society in a positive manor by eliminating offenders out of the community. Sentencing may include one of the following: probation, fines, prison, community service, probation and so forth depending on the state you reside and the type of offense you commit. Each crime committed doesn’t have a set sentence, therefore they are determined on a case to case basis. The main goal of the criminal justice system is to defend the community and serve justice. Sentencing plays a vital role in the Criminal Justice system.

In today’s society crimes in the United State are growing each day, and the major aspect of the U.S criminal justice system is the punishment imposed on those who committed crimes in our communities. One method of sentencing criminals was the establishment of the mandatory minimum sentencing. During the early days of the republic, specific sentences were carried out for certain crime and early mandatory sentences the forms of punishment used at the time stretched from ducking stools/cucking stools for disorderly women and dishonest tradesmen in England, Soctland to hanging for convicted murderers. However, in recent years, evidence gathered have shown that the federal mandatory minimum sentencing were not in effect for reaching the goals of the criminal justice system. Chief Justice William Rehnquist has previously stated that “these statutes are “perhaps a good example of the law of unintended consequences. This essay will discuss the history, goals, benefits, and negatives of the American Judicial Systems Mandatory Sentencing.

Congress sought to reform the sentencing system by designing sentencing Guideline rules that were uniformly to control disparity. In order to reform the sentencing system, Congress created the Sentencing Commission in charge of designing a new sentencing system using multiple sources to evaluate the means to control the source of disparity (Bowman, 1996; Fifteen Years of Guidelines, 2004). Once the Guidelines were created and implemented, studies conducted by the Commission reports that it has increased drastically especially for drug offenses due to different adaptations to the Guidelines and the different types of offenses prosecuted in different regions (Fifteen Years of Guidelines, 2004). The variation in sentence lengths is analyzed based on the data evidence shows 73 percent of differences in federal sentence length causing unwarranted disparity (Fifteen Years of Guidelines, 2004). The cause of unwarranted disparity is influenced by policies promulgated by Congress that were supposedly designed to amend the effects of uneven charging and plea-bargaining decisions. With prosecutors in control of determining an offenders sentencing, they can impose several enhancement to depart from the Guidelines to provide leniency. However, such enhancement resulted in sentences disproportional to the appropriate serious of the offense that would be otherwise applied to the case (Fifteen Years of Guidelines, 2004). The Commission reports there is little empirical research in exploring why prosecutors use its discretion to apply enhanced penalties and depart from the Guidelines (Tonry, 1996; Fifteen Years of Guidelines,

This paper will attempt to explain the importance of proportionality with regards to criminal sentencing, increase understanding of the reasons our sentencing procedures continually fluctuate, identify three groups of individuals protected under the 8th Amendment from receiving a death sentence for a capital offense, attempts to explain the relationship between sentencing and the 6th Amendment, and will discuss the origin of the felony murder rule and its applicability.

The court system is an organization in order to provide swift and accurate judgement to the public. When an individual commits a crime they are summoned to appear before a judge. The judge is the individual who will determine their fines, jail time and the overall outcome of a case. This paper will discuss mandatory minimum sentences and sentencing guidelines.

Miscarriage of justice is reflected in various states across the nation, where there are far too many occurrences where individuals have been convicted of crimes and subjected to unfair mandatory sentencing. “Mandatory minimum sentencing laws require binding prison terms of a particular length for people convicted of certain federal and state crimes” (Famm, n.d.). “Mandatory minimum sentences imposed by statute are intended to achieve consistency in sentencing at the expense of individual consideration of the contextual sentencing factors” (Harvard Law Review, 2011). “These inflexible, one-size-fits-all sentencing laws may seem like a quick-fix solution for crime, but they undermine justice by preventing judges from fitting the punishment to the individual and the circumstances of their offense” (Famm, n.d) “Mandatory sentencing laws cause federal and state prison populations to soar, leading to overcrowding, exorbitant costs to taxpayers, and diversion of funds from law enforcement” (Famm, n.d.)

Rehnquist, a judge himself at this point, believes that mandatory sentencing is the result of knee jerk reactions from legislators. Not only that, but the sentences are unusually harsh on first time offenders, a group which is usually offered some form of leniency in light of the fact that they are not habitual offenders. Rehnquist argues that a better policy would be to return to former guidelines. This is the stance this policy seeks to take. That having such inflexible rules on sentencing does not account for the all the variables that are involved in a the legal process, such as the age of offender, past criminal history, mitigating circumstances and other factors that experienced judges would know to take into account when handing down sentences.

The criminal trial process is an interesting process that takes place in Courtrooms all across the United States and throughout the globe. This study intends to set out the various steps in the criminal trial process in the American justice system. A trial is described as a "legal forum for resolving individual disputes, and in the case of a criminal charge, it is a means for establishing whether an accused person is legally guilty of an offense. The trial process varies with respect to whether the matter at issue is civil in nature or criminal. In either case, a jury acts as a fact-finding body for the court in assessing information and evidence that is presented by the respective parties in a case. A judge presides over the court and addresses all the legal issues that arise during the trial. A judge also instructs the jury how to apply the facts to the laws that will govern in a given case." (3rd Judicial District, 2012)

The functionality of the criminal justice system can potentially be flawed by the lack of a clear, concise sentencing guidelines. Studies have shown that the circumstances of the offender, their families, as well as the community can be affected by any biased views in sentencing guidelines (Doerner, 2012).

"Any court dealing with an offender in respect of his offense must have regard to the following purposes of sentencing" retribution, denunciation, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation which will all be discussed in this essay.

Although rationality does not always exist, much of the functioning of criminal justice agencies is unplanned, poorly coordinated, and unregulated. Existing systems include some components that are very ancient, additionally each of the institutions have their own set of goals and priorities that sometimes conflict with those of other institutions, or with the goals and priorities of the system as a whole. Furthermore, each of these institutions have substantial unregulated discretion in making particular decisions such as the victim's decision to report a crime (Frase & Weidner).