The Pros And Cons Of Criminal Punishment

Regardless of what you might see on TV the verdict of “not guilty by the reason of insanity” is an immensely rare plea for anyone. A majority of offenders with a mental illness still end up incarcerated. Even though the United States only makes up 5% of the world's population we account for 25% of the world's prisoners. Which converts to 2.2 million prisoners and about 1.2 million of those people have a mental illness (Fellner). Mental illness within our jails and prisons has become very prevalent within our correctional systems over the last 10 years. The number of men and women who have a mental illness that end up in jail or prison grows day by day. For those who do not go into the prison with a mental illness, will very likely develop some form of mental illness after being released from incarceration. The mentally ill do not belong in prison, the purpose for incarceration is retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation, and though it is originally meant for all of these purposes, it has lost its meaning. Correctional facilities are not built to provide treatment for the mentally ill, and the people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness cannot get the long-term treatment they need inside of a prison cell.

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

There are many controversial issues in our world today, and each of those issues is well debated by people who either support it or absolutely loathe it. One of those highly debated controversial issues is the juvenile death penalty. Since the Roper v. Simmons case in 2005, sentencing juveniles to death is considered illegal on the grounds that it violates the Eighth Amendment rights (Babcock 6). Although it is considered illegal in the United States, it is still a highly debated problem. There are people that believe the juvenile death penalty is an effective punishment and should not be illegal. On the other hand, many believe that the juvenile death penalty is an extreme punishment and should not be an option when it comes to sentencing juveniles. With such a critical issue, it is only considered fair to understand both sides opinions about the juvenile death penalty.

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)

On June25, 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles who committee murder could not be stentced to life in prison because it violates the eighth amendment. I understand that it violates the eighth amendment, but if we don’t stop these kids doing this kind of crime then we are letting them know that it is okay for them to do it at a young age when it’s not. Then we ask ourselves what we could’ve done when we lose a love in the violate choice that they chose. I would disagree with the Supreme Court in this case because we have to let them learn their lesson, they need to start to take responsibility, and because it has nothing to with the mentally.

Are the courts violating the 8th amendment by imposing mandatory life imprisonment on juvenile offenders? Is this sentence initiating cruel and unusual punishment to juveniles?

The Supreme Court ruled that adolescent committed a murder cannot be sentenced to life in prison, because it violated the eighth amendment’s banning of cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling supports the claim that a punishment as such affects the juveniles that are imprisoned mentally and emotionally. Teenagers that committed a murder should not be sentenced with imprisonment to life because, this adolescent are able to be rehabilitated with proper family support.

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.

The Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment “guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions.This comes from the basic precepts of justice`is punishment for the crime should be gradually and proportionally for the two offenders. The courts looked at a couple of cases and how they face this constitutional issue and what they came up with. One case that was mention was Roper v.Simmons held that the eighth amendment bared capital punishment for children, and Graham v. Florida conclude that the amendment prohibit life without parole sentence for juvenile convicted of a non homicide offense. In Roper and Graham established that children are different than adults. They are not as mature and lack sense of responsibility,Teens can be risk takers, and reckless, and they are vulnerable to outside pressures such as peer pressure and their environment. These attributes or the reason why Penological justification for giving lighter punishments to these teens even when they commit murder. Graham showed courts have to consider the offender youth when deciding a sentence, otherwise the court would be dismissing the eighth amendment. Graham makes relevant this Court’s cases demanding individualized sentencing in capital case. The courts basically look at two different standards of trying juvenile case. One argument transferred the case to an

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

not be sentenced to life in prison because it violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Both sides of the argument have credible evidence on why their opinions are swayed, however each side has inconsiderate repercussions. There are juveniles who are under the age of eighteen, who are at many times given life in prison with parole for murder because of the Supreme Court ruling. Yet, there is no black or white answer that will solve whether we should punish minors with life in prison with parole. Cases should be determined on the murderer’s maturity, impetuosity during the situation and his failure

Once again, Juveniles do not deserve the same sentences as adults do because of many differences that affect their character. The Eighth Amendment states that there should be no cruel or unusual punishment. I believe that a life sentence on kids without parole or physiological therapy to help fix their wrong is a cruel punishment and it is violating an Amendment given to

The Supreme Court, on June 25, 2012, has banned the sentencing of life in prison without parole for a juvenile who have committed murder. According to the Supreme Court, the act of sentencing life in prison without parole violates the eighth amendment which bans cruel and unusual punishment. The ban only applies to people of under the age of eighteen years old. The purpose is to prevent children under eighteen to be tried as an adult in court. Not all justices agree with the ban, four of them disapproves of it, claiming it is “the will of American society that heinous crimes committed by juveniles should always be punished with a sentence of life in prison.” I personally agree with the ban but I do agree with the four justices on that American

According to the article “Teen Violence Statistics” on average 4,828 young people, ages 10-24, were victims of homicide an average of 13 each day. Statistics show 784 juveniles were arrested for murder. So, should those victims be left without a proper punishment? On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles who committed murder could not be sentenced to life in prison due to the fact it violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and usual punishment, however what they did was cruel and unusual. I believe that a mandatory sentence of life without parole for juveniles who committed first or second degree murder is a justifiable sentence and should not be abolished. Their acts should be punished the same way an adult would be. However these young criminals who committed first and second degree murder must be given the chance to persuade a judge to permit his or her release into society. If these so what called “children” want to commit crimes any adult would, they must face the consequences. The brain development is an overrated excuse for these criminals.