Truth In Sentencing

However, there are many factors that contribute to the crime rate and not just the level of imprisonment. Imprisonment as the main line of defence against crime is a very expensive form of criminal control. The impact of imprisonment is not only economic costs (federal and states government) but also has social costs for individuals, families and communities. As the prison population increases so do the cost of infrastructure that leads to an unsustainable judicial system and rising economic costs. A parliamentary committee examining the reinvestment of justice in Australia has produced the latest statistics on our prison system. It costs more than $300 a day to keep an offender in jail and more than $600 a day to keep a juvenile in detention. Society already suffers at the hands of criminals and then suffers again to finance the offender in jail – a double hit to law abiding citizens. The effectiveness of imposing imprisonment need to be examined further by academic research to obtain some alternative

In, “The Caging of America”, by Adam Gopnik explains the problems in the in the American criminal justice system focusing more on the prison system. Some of the struggles that Gopnik states in his article are mass incarceration, crime rate, and judges giving long inappropriate sentencings to those with minor crimes. He demonstrates that inmates are getting treated poorly than helping them learn from their actions. Using facts and statistics, Gopnik makes his audience realize that there is an urgent need of change in the American prison system. The main idea of Gopnik’s article is that the prison system needs to improve its sentencing laws because prisons are getting over crowed. Gopnik’s argument is valid because there is a problem in the sentencing laws that has caused a malfunction in the prison system as a whole.

REFERENCESAustralian Law Reform Commission (1980), Sentencing of Federal Offenders, Discussion Paper No. 15Law Reform Commission NSW (2001), Discussion Paper 33(1996)-Sentencing, (Chapter 7. Parole), Lawlink New South Wales, Online. Available. http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/DP33CHP7 3.4.2006No Author (2006), Sensible Sentencing NZ Justice: Why Parole?, Safe NZ, Online. Available. http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/paole.htm 3.4.2006Travis, L.F. (1995). Introduction to criminal justice (pp307

Truth-in-Sentencing laws deter crime because they ensure that offenders are in prison for at least 85% of their sentence. Therefore, the convicted offenders stay in prison for longer periods and not able to commit additional crimes and endanger the member of society. TIS laws are the assurance of longer prison terms as punishment and serve as an effective deterrent from criminal actions to the serving offender and others who may be considering criminal acts. The laws provide the ability for the criminal justice system to operate more effectively by lowering violent crimes as well punishing violent criminals. According to the publication from University of Alabama at Birmingham (2005) citing data from Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the decade following the passage and implementation of the truth-in-sentencing laws in 1994, the arrests for violent crimes were reduced by 16% by the year of 2005. The TIS laws also limit some of the

The ongoing role of prison within the UK Criminal Justice System is becoming increasingly unclear. On the one hand in the 21st century, it is considered to be a “state strategy for crime control, a deterrent for those contemplating crime and punitive response for those who have broken laws”McAvinchey (2011 pg.10). On the other hand, it is also supposed to have a rehabilitative purpose, the intended role of a prison is to rehabilitate the offender so that when they have completed their prison sentence, they can be successfully rehabilitated back into the community and live a crime free fulfilled life. Yet, when examining the vital statistics that underline an increase in prisoner population, it is clearly apparent that the system neither

I will be representing on behalf of The John Howard Society of Canada, and advocating on behalf of people who are imprisoned in Canada. I aim to contend the court the recognition of prisoners as right-bearing people, and the need of scrutiny when applying s.1 of the charter to any legislation that arbitrates with the prisoner’s rights. To begin with a brief introduction on our organization’s. The John Howard Society of Canada is national organization that “fills a role in public education, community service, and in pressing for reform in the criminal justice area.” Our mission and core values are, “Effective, just and human responses to the causes and consequences of crime. We are an, “Organization of provincial and territorial Societies comprised of and governed by people whose goal is to understand and respond to problems of crime and the criminal justice system. They are fiscally responsible for the continuance of the work and service of the National Office.”

The administration of criminal justice and the operation of criminal process play an important role in our ever-changing society. The current structure of the New South Wales criminal justice system, as described by leading critic Doreen McBarnet as the ‘two tiers of justice’, has attracted many critiques namely the ideology of triviality, summary offence punishment and other legal notions such as technocratic justice. I have applied the above concepts during the course of my observation to Local, District and Supreme Courts of New South Wales in April 2016. The following report will assess the validity of the above concepts at a practical level in light with my observation and research, drawing intrinsic links between two tiers of justice and technocratic justice, and concluding with the two tiers of justice as a necessary framework in our modern criminal justice system.

In addition, there are approximately 2,240,000 prisoners in penal institutions in the United States, which represents more than 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population (Walmsley 2013). According to a publication from National Council of Crime and Delinquency, the United Kingdom’s incarceration rate is only 145 per 100,000 people which is roughly five times less compared to America. Considering that common American law is derived by English law, it is appalling the find such a deviation between the two countries in their imprisonment rates. One significant factor to the United States outrageously high incarceration rate is the increasing trend of legislatures adding new criminal offenses to criminal codes. For an example, in an attempt to control crime in the 70s and 80s, lawmakers started passing laws, which increased the amount of criminal acts along with establishing harsh sentences. Many criminal offenses have mandatory minimum sentences that requires the judge to sentence the offender for the required minimum incarceration period stated in the penal code and does not allow the judge to use their own discretion to reduce, suspend, or even waive the sentence - if it was believed to be found in the best interest for both the public and offender. In addition to the legislative trend of increasing the amount of criminal offenses, the Bureau of Justice Statistic states in a report that from 1980, the

The aspect of the Canadian justice system that this article relates to is obviously policing/ law enforcement. Specifically this article goes into the regulations of policing as Ontario police officers now have to follow stricter regulations when stopping any member of the public. This is important in relation to the Canadian justice system as police officers stopping citizens is considered a controversial issue as people feel random stops or carding are considered arbitrary, and unnecessary, and this violates section 9 of the charter of rights and freedoms which states that “everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned”. (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) and Carding is “A practice by which officers stop, question,

By incarcerating offenders the state based justice system ignores offenders needs and histories (Elliott, 2011, p. 72). The state assumes offenders are rational. This rationality is tied to the system looking at the individual level or the “bad apples” of responsibility (Zimbardo, 2008; Elliot, 2011, p. 72). However, a rational decision maker is unable to always predict potential alternatives and consequences (Zsolnai, 1997). Therefore, the individual level of responsibly ignores other systematic factors that influence offending. It is arguable that the Western system examines beyond the individual level by incorporating specific sentencing principles for Aboriginal people (see R v Gladue, 1999). However, society still has mass

On any given day in Canada, there are more blameless individuals in jail than liable ones. By "blameless individuals" I mean the individuals who have been blamed for a wrongdoing and are being hung on remand, anticipating a safeguard hearing or a trial. “dozens of innocent people might be languishing behind bars. Over the ensuing 30 years, more than 20 convicted murderers have been freed on the basis of serious doubts about the reliability of evidence and trial fairness in their cases.” The revealing of wrongly convicted wrongdoers has been apparently the overwhelming lawful improvement in Canada over the past half-century. In recent years, the issue of wrongful conviction has turned into an acknowledged reality in most common law jurisdiction; Prominent cases tend not just to attract our consideration regarding the deleterious impacts of a wrongful conviction on an individual but also to illustrate how parts of the criminal justice process have fizzled. An across the nation system of attorneys, columnists and legitimate associations have fought resolutely in the courts to get the freedom of offenders who had, in some cases, spent decades incarcerated. Clearly, wrongful conviction is the aspect of being in fact innocent but unfairly held accountable by a jury or other court of law for an act you did not do. Also a criminal code is a statute which implies or endeavors to set out all denied or criminal offenses, and their different disciplines. In this paper, I discuss

Most taxpayers and residents of communities aren’t aware of how beneficial it can be to lock up a reduced amount nonviolent criminals. The argument of incarcerating less nonviolent offenders originated in the 1970s, with increasing public concern about the threat of crime and many becoming skeptical about how effective rehabilitation is, Americans started focusing on some other goals of the prison system, such as retribution and public safety. They argue crime measures, such as mandatory minimum sentences and truth in sentencing laws, are keeping minor offenders in prison for too long and at great expense to the taxpayers. Advocates of harsh sentencing laws counter that they are necessary as a solution to lenient judges. David Masci, a CQ

Truth-in-sentencing laws were designed to reduce the disparity between court-ordered sentences and the time offenders actually served (Brunt, 2015). According to USLegal Definitions (n.d.), it requires inmates to serve a substantial portion of their sentence before release is eligible. Under the truth-in-sentencing law, policies such as goodtime, earned-time, and parole board release are restricted or eliminate (USLegal Definitions, n.d.). According to Drizin (2015), In the mid-1990’s the federal government provided financial incentives to states to build correctional facilities and to implement truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimums and other policies that increased of sentences of juveniles convicted in criminal court.

On March 15th, 2015, Amy Minsky, a reporter for Global News released a news article about Stephen Harper’s new tough on crime proposal. Stephen Harper wanted to change the length of imprisonment for people sentenced to life. His proposed bill was called “Life Means Life”. This meant that people who committed the most brutal and heinous crimes would be sentenced to spend the rest of their living days, without parole, behind bars. The purpose of this paper is to argue that Stephen Harper’s approach to being tough on crime is problematic.

The evolution of punishment has come a long way in Canada from Confederation in the 1800’s to present day 21st century. Research has been going on continuously to identify whether these punishments are based on a person’s behaviour or on society itself. The word punishment is referred to as a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure ("Punishment | Definition of Punishment by Merriam-Webster"). In today’s society does the punishment equivalent to the crime committed by an offender? Therefore, how much punishment should one receive based on their offence? It is a conflicting matter that has brought the government and the public into speculation on the judicial system from time to time. Punishment is a philosophy, which states many years back when someone was seen committing wrongdoings they were punished by cutting off their heads or hanging them.