Supreme Court Sentencing Regimes

Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court. Three tests are used from previous cases to determine whether a right of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment are extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The first test is determining whether the right to a trial by jury is a “fundamental principle of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions.” It also needs to be determined if this right is “basic in our system of jurisprudence” and if the right to a trial by jury is “a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial.” White determines that a right to a trial by jury passes these tests. He determines that the right of a trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment is “fundamental to the American scheme of justice.” The right to a jury trial was created to avoid abuse by the Government. A right to a jury trial is a safeguard against a corrupt prosecutor or judge. Due to this, the right to a jury trial it is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which becomes fundamental to all States. In distinguishing a petty offense from a serious offense, the penalty of the crime is viewed. The punishment authorized by the State is used “as a gauge of its social and ethical judgments.” Louisiana law’s penalty for simple battery of imprisonment of up to two years and a fine is not considered to be a petty offense. Compared to the federal system, petty crimes are those punishable with up to six months in prison and a $500 fine. A crime punishable by two years in prison, by the standards of this country, is determined to be a serious offense and not the

This landmark case in criminal procedure was marked by great public criticism for the liberal stance shown by the U.S. Supreme Court. It ensures defendant’s rights to what many people regarded as opening the door to convicted criminals to escape punishment through “technicalities”.

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.

While the United States’ justice system has been a model for many countries around the world, the injustice of certain aspects in our court’s system is prominent. Mandatory minimums are just one example the of injustice in our justice system. The Supreme Court has “…casted doubt on the constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines used for nearly two decades” (Kenneth Jost, 2004), despite this, nothing has been done to correct it. And while the idea of mandatory minimums is a good thing, they don’t work in the American justice system or in current American society.

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.

In its decision, the Court voted that the death penalty statutes were vague and ambiguous, providing little guidance to juries in deciding whether to apply the death penalty. This caused states which still wanted the death penalty to revise their legislation to satisfy the Supreme Court’s objection to the arbitrary nature of execution.

As society has evolved, the way the death penalty has been implemented has also evolved- sometimes against the words of our Constitution. One of the more influential cases that transformed how people view the death penalty was Furman v. Georgia. This case set up a guide for limited sentencing discretion; this meant that sentencing for the death penalty would become standardized. Essentially in extreme cases, every criminal death qualified would be sent to death row and eventually executed. After disputes after Furman, cases like Woodson v. North Carolina insisted on individualized discretion when discussing the death penalty. Those in favor of Woodson believed that character ad record of an individual must be accounted especially when discussing life or death (Woodson 238). In Walton v. Arizona, Justice Scalia and Justice Blackburn dispute over the rationality of limited discretion v individualized discretion. Although each presents his case differently, both agree about the tension between the Furman’s promotion for limited discretion and Woodson’s idea of individualized sentencing discretion. In accordance with the Constitution, both Furman v. Georgia and Woodson v. North Carolina violated the Eighth Amendment in their respective ways but the current system (in terms of capital punishment provides a loose balance that ensures both the uniqueness of human beings as well as limits arbitrariness.

In delving further into the debate between the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of mandatory sentencing, it is relevant to scrutinize the constitutionality of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. There is concern “that the Guidelines did not allow sufficient judicial discretion.” Congress in turn argued that the Guidelines were created to alleviate the disproportionate sentences created by judicial discretion.

The assumption that the ultimate decision should rely with the juries as an objective approach should be reviewed. The U.S. Constitution should modify the power of the jury and also reconsider the process of a case going to trial. Cases should not take years in order to come to a conclusion on the ruling, in this matter juries need to stress the urgency of finalizing the case. Judges must not stand by and allow the prosecutor and defendant to debate for hours in front of a jury that decides the ultimate decision. Juries must act as the commentator of law in the court ruling for the

According to Sarah Mourer, the author of the article “Forgetting Furman: Arbitrary Death Penalty Sentencing Schemes Across The Nation,” Since 1976 The U.S. Supreme Court has read the Eight Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as demanding that arbitrariness be minimized when the state seeks to impose the penalty of death. But unfortunately arbitrariness has been part of the death penalty decision-making. The main problem is the information overload, because capital jury has to process an unlimited amount of evidence relating to aggravating and mitigating the current death penalty jurisprudence tends to enhance and embrace arbitrariness instead of minimize it. (Mourer, N.P.).

The lawyers of Thompson Law Office in Lexington, KY handle a number of criminal and civil cases in the community. Their team of defense attorneys is experienced in providing assistance in DUI cases, drug possession and trafficking, wrongful death cases, and even divorces. This brother/sister law firm understands how family is affected by criminal and civil law and ensures success in the courtroom with appropriate representation.

Punishments for an individual’s criminal actions, such as the possession of illicit drugs, have been in place for centuries. However, many people wonder why certain punishments are more severe than others and how a judge makes the final decision of what a sentence may be. In Federal Courts, a sentencing guideline is determined by the individual’s criminal history, severity of the crime, and mitigating factors.1

Most stages of the criminal justice system revolve around the sentencing process, in that the primary focus is determining the guilt or innocence of the accused (Neubauer & Pradella, 2011). As a result, numerous laws, policies, and practices have been implemented throughout the system as a means to make sentencing procedures less complex. However, most of these sentencing laws have produced an adverse effect, and generated barriers during this stage of the justice process. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis is to provide further insight on challenges within the sentencing process in regard to sentencing laws. More specifically, three strikes laws are discussed in-detail as a means to present the positive and negative impacts they have

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.

The author would have to say that the statistics coupled with the creation of the United States Sentencing Committee reveal that judicial discretion was at a much higher level prior to 1984, and has been on a decline as legislature has begun to regulate the discretion in which judges having in regard to sentencing in criminal cases. “Anderson, Kling, and Smith (1999) investigated 77,201 criminal cases decided between