The Sentencing Policy And The Criminal Justice System

Bentham, J. (1789). Punishment and deterrence. In A. von Hirsch & A. Ashworth (Eds., 1998), Principled sentencing: readings on theory and policy (2nd ed.). 53-57. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

The United States is less the 5% of the world population but has almost 25% of the world’s prison population (Coates, 2015; Waldman, 2016). In the last 40 years, the number of American civilians imprisoned by the United States has increased 500%. (Mauer, 2011). However, this explosion in incarceration rates has not been evenly distributed throughout the American population (Waldman, 2016). While one in seventeen White men will be imprisoned in their lifetime, one in sixteen Latino men will face this fate and for Black men, the number is one in three (Mauer,2011). Neither the racial disparity in incarceration nor its scale was accidental (Coates, 2015). The mass incarceration of Black men in the United States was a direct result of the “War

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).

Within the past decades, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of heinous crimes committed, causing some of the laws to significantly change. During the 1970s, some dramatic changes occurred when laws shifted from one extreme to another: rehabilitation to retribution. Such circumstances created an additional emphasis on the offense rather than on the offender. During the 1980s, the “get-tough-on-crime” era began; thus, radical changes in laws continued up until the late 1990s. Throughout the period of the Industrial Society, the United States had two bipolar types of punishment: harsh and lenient. Today, the main focus of the Criminal Justice System is about retribution and punishment.

Similar to the Sentencing Reform Act, the purpose of the United States Sentencing Commission is to prevent inequity of sentencing among federal judges. It’s role is to serve as a strict guideline for Judges to adhere and limits the discretion at which a Judge may alter the length of sentence. The goal of this commission is to hamper factors such as race, sex, socioeconomic status, etc to affect the length of sentence, and aims for the guideline to stand on a neutral ground.

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.

Prior to the amendment of the Sentencing Reforming Act, Federal Judges had the freedom of imposing different length of sentence for each criminal. This resulted in a disparity among inmates on the length of time served. To prevent this, the sole purpose of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was to revise the federal criminal sentencing policy into a uniform guideline. The aim is to maintain integrity in the length of sentence in the justice system for each inmate, while providing judges the freedom to manipulate the length of sentence to better fit the crime.

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.

BATH, N.Y. (WENY) -- After more than an hour of impact statements, Thomas Clayton learned his fate. Clayton will spend the rest of his life in prison for hiring Michael Beard to kill his wife Kelley back in 2015.

This weeks topic talks about reasonable sentencing, one that follows the guidelines set by the United States Sentencing Commission (Lane, 2007), and unreasonable sentencing, one that does not fall within those guidelines and is not justified by the judge (Lane, 2007). Many factors are taken into account when determining the sentence issued by the judge. Some of these factors are drug involvement, criminal history, premeditation, amount of harm or damage done, and whether or not the accused accepts responsibility for their actions (Sentencing and Rehabilitation, 2012). If the judge feels that a more severe or less severe punishment is warranted and can give justifiable reasons for such he can issue such a sentence and still be considered

In America’s criminal justice system alternative sentencing has been the primary use of punishment towards offenders. With the introduction of innovative sentencing it has lead to a common question of which is a more effective approach. Alternative sentencing includes a combination of sentences, probation, fines, restitution, ect. On the other hand, innovative sentencing is a type of punishment that focuses on linking the crime to the punishment and allows the offender to accept the consequences in retribution. Pro Arguments

The legal system is reliant on two different approaches for sentencing the offenders. The determinate and indeterminate sentencing is discussed in detail. The recent trend towards determinate sentencing and their impacts are also elaborated. The reasons for choosing determinate sentencing and its role in reducing recidivism are also discussed in the following sections. The political influence on these changes has also brought it in public domain and several opinions in favor and against prevail in the ordinary public as well as the legal practitioners.

Sentencing in America has come a long way from the past, and this present time isolation is an intricate part of sentencing and the criminal justice system relies on it. Moreover, America does not use the corporal punishment and cutting off of extremities anymore. However, sentencing become critical when the question is asked do current sentencing method works or accomplish what it set to accomplish? Nevertheless, are the key components of the goals of criminal sentencing being address all the time? Rest assured, the isolation incapacitation will definitely be covered, but do the victim really receive retribution or do the offender become reformed? Conversely, the just deserts portion can also be debated because the criminal justice system

Reforming the crime punishment has been controversial for a long time. Some criticisms claim that punishment should be maintained for each type of crime, whereas others opposite and argued that the punishment should be considered on different criminals. There are advantages and disadvantages on this issue. In my opinion, I support that the criminals who have same crime should be punished equally.