The Sentencing Reform Act Of 1984

Since many inmates return back into our communities, the Reformatory Era helped decrease the impact of imprisonment on long term inmates as see under the Principle of Normalization. This principle explained how conditions of prisoners should correspond as much as possible to the living conditions in the general society. A solution during this era was parole. This gave the offender the opportunity for early release based on their behavior. Offenders were given a minimum and maximum period of incarceration which is also known as indeterminate sentencing. New York adopted indeterminate sentencing during 1876. Since prisoners had indeterminate sentencing, they could be paroled and able to achieve goals that were set to them by their “handler”. Probation soon spread all around the United States giving different approaches to they way criminal justice policies were

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).

The concept of mandatory sentencing is a relatively new idea in the legal field. It was first introduced in 1951 with the Boggs Act, and it made simple marijuana possession a minimum of two to ten years with a $20,000 fine. This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Since then, the scope and presence of mandatory sentencing has only grown, especially mandatory sentences for drug related offenses. Recently, there has been a growing concern over the use and implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing, with many believing it reduces a judge’s ability to give out a sentence that they feel accordingly fits the crime. Many advocates for mandatory

The United States prison population has grown seven-fold over the past forty years, and many Americans today tend to believe that the high levels of incarceration in our country stem from factors such as racism, socioeconomic differences, and drugs. While these factors have contributed to the incarceration rate present in our country today, I argue that the most important reason our country has such a high incarceration rate is the policy changes that have occurred since the 1970s. During this time, the United States has enacted policy changes that have produced an astounding rise in the use of imprisonment for social control. These policy changes were enacted in order to achieve greater consistency, certainty, and severity and include sentencing laws such as determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three strikes laws (National Research Council 2014). Furthermore, I argue that mandatory sentencing has had the most significant effect on the incarceration rate.

The Sentencing Project is a 501c3 nonprofit dedicated to creating a fairer criminal justice system (The Sentencing Project, 2015). Founded in 1986, they research and advocate for many criminal justice issues, one of which is racial disparities in mass incarceration. In 2015 alone the organization worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the racial disparity in mass incarceration. They did this through letters to the editor in publications like the New York Times, publishing comprehensive research and recommendations for ending the racial disparity in mass incarceration such as their publication Black Lives Matter: Eliminating racial inequality in the criminal justice system and The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons. Last year their executive director delivered testimony to agencies, such as the Charles Colson Federal Corrections Task Force, as well as the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, a version of which both the House and Senate have now adopted. They have also provided technical assistance, testimony, and research to state level legislation and lawsuits across the United States. Members of their executive team testified or assisted in hearings in over 15 states in 2015 including the Maryland state legislature at a hearing on felony

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).

Statistical elaboration has shown that decreasing the prison population does not affect the well being of the community. Diminishing overcrowding within our jails should be of great importance for state administrations. Our President Barack Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act into effect in 2010. The method must be two-fold: first, understand how the Fair Sentencing Act works, and second, put a greater emphasis on the recommendations given in reducing the disparity in sentencing.

The classical perspective founded by Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham; stated that at people choose to commit crime after they considered the pros and cons that could be associated with a crime, and believed that the pros outweighed the cons (Tonry,2014). The theory relied on deterring criminal acts by assuring that the consequences of crime are absolute, harsh, and quickly administered (Tonry,2014).

Within the last four decades, the rate of incarceration in the United States has continued to increase exponentially. The Bureau of Justice reports that the inmate population in 1971 was estimated at two hundred thousand, while the current number stands at roughly 1.5 million – nearly eight times more than the number of inmates in 1971. Because of the high costs associated with prison operations, their overcrowding, and wrongful convictions, California introduced legislative measures such as Propositions 36 and 47 as well as Assembly Bills 109 and 117, in order to lessen the number of incarcerations. Not only will implementing these reforms save the state millions in revenue, they will also rightfully place truly dangerous criminals in

The recently passed ‘Sentencing Amendment (Coward’s Punch Manslaughter and Other Matters)’ arose within a highly politicized context and has led to controversy. The amendment was introduced in response to a perceived increase need to legislate on deaths caused by king hit punches or “coward’s punch”. It amends both the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) and the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), by defining a punch to head or neck as dangerous act, introducing a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for manslaughter by one punch, and increases the mandatory minimum sentence for manslaughter by gross violence to 10 years . However, there is likely little need for this legislation, as pre-existing law was already capable of dealing with the offence, and the implementation of this legislation will likely fail to effectively achieve its purpose. Moreover, the introduction, or increase, of a mandatory sentence will be unlikely to effectively deter individuals, and will remove the courts discretion regarding sentencing. In this essay I will argue that the legislation is unneeded to prosecute those who king hit others, and that it will likely fail to have its intended effect.

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.

Nevertheless, criminal justice reform may be the exception to the rule of gridlock in Congress, as a reform bill with broad bipartisan support was introduced in the Senate in the fall of 2015. The ‘‘Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015’’ contains a broad array of changes to the justice system on the federal level, including:

In the USA, The Fifth Amendment states that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. "1 In Canada, “our judicial system is founded on the presumption of innocence in criminal matters, meaning everyone is innocent until proven guilty. ”2 This concept of due process is the exact opposite of the punishment system in George Orwell’s novel 1984.

Congress had initially enacted a Sentencing Reform Act (Herein referred to as The Act) 1984 which was to combat the discrepancies that existed with regards to the criminal punishment sentences. The Act, in its disposition: (I) rejected rehabilitation and deemed punishment to be incapacitate, deterrent, educational and retributive. (ii) ensured the creation of the United States Sentencing Commission which was responsible for the setting of sentencing guidelines (iii) makes

This belief indicated that if offenders could not be rehabilitated then they should be punished and it was time to get tough on crime. Within a relatively short time parole was attacked and the individual approach of indeterminate sentencing, or release by the authority of a parole board was abolished in 16 states (Rhine, Smith, and Jackson, 1991) and some form of determinate sentencing was adopted in all 50 states (Mackenzie, 2000)].