The Pros And Cons Of Unfair Sentencing

1. Mandatory minimum sentencing is a protocol made to provide accurate sentencing for a crime. The purpose is to provide a standard where judges cannot reduce sentences, in order to encourage a fairer judicial system.

The Anti- Drug abuse act allowed a decree on longer sentencing when it came to criminal drug charges causing unbalance in the penal system when it came to the sentence granted depending on race. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act was brought to congress a few years after the introduction of the Sentencing Reform Act. The Sentencing Reform Act was to bring equal stability when it came to sentencing criminals regardless of origins. The introduction of the Anti-abuse act was brought forth by the tough on crime era, in which it center was preventing crime by upping criminal sentencing. Conservative President Ronald Reagan brought forth this notion with congress in the midst of continuing being tough on crime. It was seen as controversial because it went

What has society done about reforming sentencing laws in order to reduce the incarceration population? The fair sentencing Act which was signed by president Obama has helped reduce the number of inmates impacted by mandatory minimum sentencing by “reducing the disparity in the amounts of powder cocaine and crack cocaine required for the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences and eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine, it also increases penalties for major drug traffickers” (White House 2010). What the Act did was changed the ratio of Crack cocaine v Cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1 (U. S. Department of Justice 2010). This Act is beneficial because it

In this paper I will illustrate racial disparity in sentencing in the criminal justice system. The causes of racial disparity and the reasons it is on the rise, the research statistics, and the proposed solutions are discussed.

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)

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.

Though incineration rates are rising and show no signs of stopping, there are still leaders and organizations suggesting ideas on ways to address the present underline issues. According to Ghandnooh (2015), one way to better address the problem of disparity for policies, was to reduce or stop officers ability to stop and frisk. In New York City, the courts ruled that, allowing officers to stop and frisk someone, violated the rights of minorities. New legislation dropping the sentencing disparity among the consumption and delivery of crack as opposed to powder cocaine in states like; California, Missouri, and higher levels are illustrations of strengths to tackle sentencing disparities. An origination called The Vera Institute of Justice’s

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).

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,

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 principle behind indeterminate sentences is the hope that prison will rehabilitate some offenders, and that different people respond very differently to punishment (Portman,

The American correctional system is a long and complex web of different avenues a person can explore to repay their debt to society and hopefully rehabilitate in the process. Everything from Community service to fines to death is possibilities in the American corrections system. The punishment is meant to match the crime. A person who is guilty of stealing bubble gum should not be sentenced to death. There are places in the world where a person can be sentenced to death or lose an appendage over a theft of something small.In the American opinion, these things to not match the proper formula for justice. However, a person stealing bubblegum should, however, have to pay for the gum and maybe clean up trash in the park. This is a correction

Fixed sentences lack ‘attenuate judicial discretion’, promoting values proportionality and consistency within adjudication to construct comprehensive penalties based on the nature of the crime (Bagaric 2000: 2). Determinate sentencing promotes limited discretionary action through the reliance of established legislation of similar judicial sentencing to be ‘charged with similar responsibilities’, (consistency.pdf) Thus dictating like cases with equal punishment to achieve principled sentences as well as the absolute justice (Stemen and Rengifo 2011: 43).

The effect of sentencing rules has been good. By controlling the various decisions about the

Alternative sentencing can be a great tool as a remedy to the overcrowding of the prison system. Alternative sentencing is a program that was designed by the court system to make punishments fit the crime committed. Rather than sending a non-violent offender to years in prison, offenders will be sentenced to punishments such as probation, house arrest, community service, and drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. Alternative sentencing can help keep an offender from repeating the same mistakes in the future, which, in turn will decrease the inmate population and spending less tax money on prisons. It can also help inmates transition back into society as a better person with greater chance of success. Some states are reducing prison sentences