The Law Of A Uniform Sentencing Guidelines

Furthermore, throughout sentencing and punishment various legal and non-legal measures have been implemented to ensure that sentences for those convicted are appropriate and effective to enable rehabilitation and reintegration into society and provide the community with a sense of justice and security. The provision of statutory and judicial guidelines means that limits are placed on a judge’s discretion when sentencing, thus ensuring sentencing consistency. These guidelines were established in relation to the case R v. Jurisic (1998). The defendant Jurisic, pleaded guilty to three charges of dangerous driving occasioning in grievous bodily harm. He was found under the influence of cocaine on one of these charges. He was sentences to 18 months home detention, lost his driver’s licence for one year and was put on a good behaviour bond for two years. This was through to be lenient and was appealed by the DPP. The appeal was upheld and the sentence was replaced by two years imprisonment and two years disqualification of his driver’s

Judges and magistrates must consider a wide variety of factors when determining a sentence for an offender. Primarily, the sentence must coincide with the statutory guidelines e.g that set out in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and the judicial guidelines that set precedent for all judges and magistrates in the state. Within this legislation are the purposes for which a sentence may be imposed, types of penalties, minimum/maximum sentences and mandatory sentences.

Three salient points from the films/lectures were assessments of change from the five stages of change model (Norcross, j. c., n.d.), the Fair Sentencing Act for mandatory minimum sentences (American Civil Liberties Union, 2010), and eliminating government involvement in regulation of drugs and alcohol substance, while allowing the various states to manage control (ABC News.com, 2007).

Statutory and judicial guidelines inform the exercise of judicable discretion in the area of sentencing. They aim to provide greater uniformity in sentencing matters and enhance the integrity of the process. Judicial guidelines are set by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. They are not binding but their aim is to structure discretion. For example, for the offence of culpable driving the court has indicated that in the normal course a custodial sentence should be imposed unless exceptional circumstances exist. In terms of statutory guidelines a number of acts inform the exercise of judicial discretion. For example, the Crimes Act 1900 NSW prescribes the maximum sentence that may be imposed for various offences. The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 NSW also prescribes general guidelines in relation to sentencing. For example it

Secondly, they should be addressed the needs of offenders and the deficits in their lives that contributed to their offending. And thirdly, sentences should not be severe, intrusive, or damaging to an offender’s later decarceration to live a righteous life than is minimally necessary to achieve valid purposes of the sentence he or she receives (Tonry 508). An addition to these are proportionality, which means that sentences should correspond in severity to the seriousness of the crimes which they are inflicted. Also, regularity, which signifies that sentences should be guided by official standards to make the process clear, procedures fair, and allow judges to be more accountable (Tonry 508). Moreover, the American Criminal Code must be taken into consideration. Two features must be altered if the sentencing is to become fair, effective, and just. Firstly, the harsh sentencing laws must be revoked, and secondly the limits, that matches the offense seriousness, must be put on the lawful sentences (Tonry 514). Moreover, Tonry mentioned about future changes that, “If adopted, they would greatly reduce the number of people in prison in future years, but their adoption would not significantly reduce the scale of American imprisonment in 2015 or in 2020. Doing that will require enactment of new laws authorizing reconsideration of sentences now being served (Tonry 523).

When a defendant is found guilty of a crime, it is the court’s role to decide upon a sentence that should be given to the offender. Typically, Magistrates and Judges are the main people that decide on sentences in the legal system. During the sentencing phase, there are specific rules by government that have to be followed when deciding on penalties and sentences. Every crime is given a maximum sentence, which is set based upon the type of crime committed. The four categories of sentencing are: custodial sentences, community sentences, fines and probation. There are also noncustodial sentences set in place as well. Furthermore, I will go into depth about the different sentencing that is used by the

The main arrangement of rules was submitted to Congress on April 1987, and got to be law in November 1987. Somewhere around 1987 and 1989, more than 300 difficulties to the dependability of the rules and the Sentencing Commission blocked full across the country usage. Concurrent to the improvement and usage of the government sentencing rules, Congress instituted various statutes forcing required least sentences, generally for drug and weapons offenses, and for recidivist offender (McMillon, 1993). The Sentencing Commission drafted the new rules to suit these compulsory least procurements by tying down the rules to them. The United States Sentencing Commission, predictable with the command built by Congress, proclaims rules and revisions to the rules in an iterative manner. Alterations reflect changes in statutory maximums, new mandates from Congress to the Sentencing Commission, experimental research on the usage and impact of rules, the changing pattern of crime, developing case law, in need of a change in prosecution, and advancements in learning about viable crime control. In distinction, mandatory minimum sentencing required a large single-shot attempt at crime control proposed to deliver sensational results. They need, in any case, an implicit instrument for assessing their adequacy and simple conformity. Additionally, it increases the disparities in discipline among racial groups (McMillon,

The Sentencing Reform Act is associated with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, were the U.S. federal statute increased the consistency in the United States federal sentencing. The Sentencing Reform Act created the United States Sentencing Commission. This act allowed the independent commission into the judicial branch of the United States Sentencing Commission. It consists of seven voting members and one nonvoting member. For the sake of the United States Sentencing Commission, there are regulations that establish sentencing policies and practices for the Federal criminal justice system, which ensures a meeting of the purposes of sentencing. Judges are also bestowed the power to determine the legitimacy of convictions. The aspiration of the Sentence Reform Act was to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct Also to allow the Judicial system to process....

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.

2014). The official authorities in office that make legal decisions and judgments that are using indeterminate sentencing often employ statutes that identify clearly minimum and maximum terms (Siegel, L. 2014). Equally, they also permit judicial discretion to fix the actual sentence given within these guidelines (Siegel, L. 2014). Even though rehabilitation and parole have been under heavy attack by those who argue that criminals should be punished and not overprotected (Siegel, L. 2014). When said and done the indeterminate sentence is still the most widely used types of sentence the determinate sentencing continues to be favored in nearly one-third of the states (Siegel, L. and Bartollas, C.

Mandatory sentencing involves the implementation of legislation to remove an element of judicial discretion by imposing minimum or mandatory sentences for a particular offence or type of offender. From the perspective of society, mandatory sentencing may be said to promote the rule of law in ensuring that laws are predictable and applied equally across all individuals by aiming to match the punishment to the crime, as well as reduce crime and recidivism. Depending on the outlook taken, mandatory sentencing may be said to promote the individual’s right to a fair trial as it encourages consistency but by the same token a conflict arises in that it strips the judiciary of the power to tailor sentences to the unique circumstances of each case.

Judicial discretion was prevalent over the first half of the last three decades, but has been regulated by legislature since 1984. Discretion by definition is the authorization of deciding as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits (Ntanda, 1999). Indeterminate sentencing, traditionally, has afforded judges considerable discretion over the resolve of criminal sentencing. “While such discretion theoretically allows judges to tailor sentences to the circumstances of individual crimes and criminals, thereby achieving a sort of ex post fairness, it also permits variation in sentences that may not be warranted by the observable facts of the case, reflecting instead the judge’s own preferences” (Miceli, 2008, p.207). The punishment

Sentencing models are plans or strategies developed for imposing punishment for crimes committed. During the 19th century these punishments were normally probation, fines and flat sentences. When someone was given a flat sentence, he or she had to serve the entire sentence without parole or early release. However, by the end of the 19th century the new models were developed. These new models include indeterminate, determinate, advisory/voluntary guidelines, presumptive and mandatory minimum sentencing (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011).

The Criminal Justice Systems have various objectives to achieve, one of them being reduction of crime levels. Another core objective is practicing justice. These two objectives can be achieved in various ways. Evidence has been presented by the authors that the judicial systems sometimes play unfair in solving crime cases.

The due process and crime control models, both created by Stanford University law professor Herbert Packer, represents two opposing method of principles functioning within criminal justice system. Although the models describe the important facets of the politics and practice of criminal justice, both have been criticized since presented by Packer in 1964. Presently both models are acknowledged as imperfect standards to explain the politics and law of criminal justice. The crime control ideal represents traditional principles, whereas the due process belief reflects moderate values; therefore generating conflict evident throughout the years. This paper discusses models, crime control and due process, and how each affects the criminal