Essay On Fair Sentencing

In the United States there are four main goals when it comes to punishment which are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). The main goals for these punishments are to maintain order over society and to prevent recidivism (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). This ties into the Ecology perspective. By maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism, it ties into all of the issues regarding the Ecology perspective which requires for each issue to address the individual, family, community and society. Maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism strives toward making a safer environment for the individual, family, community and society. There is no universal agreement for making the severity of punishment just or fair (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). When it comes to retribution the person who is getting punished deserves the punishment (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Retribution refers to when an individual commits a certain crime then that person must receive a punishment proportionate to that crime or suffering that they may have caused towards the victim (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Regarding deterrence there are two types, general deterrence and specific deterrence (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). General deterrence focuses on the society in general and wants to scare everyone away from committing crimes (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Specific deterrence focuses on criminals that have already been convicted and wants to prevent them from

Sentencing is the imposition of a criminal sanction by a sentencing authority , such as a judge. Schmallger & Smykla, 2009, pg# 71) There are seven goals of sentencing including revenge, retribution, just deserts, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restoration. Revenge refers to a retaliation to some kind of assault and injury. Revenge can be a type of punishment for the criminal justice system. The jury, sometimes, basis there choices on emotions, facts and evidence. It is considered revenge in some cases because the victim's looks at it that way when they feel justice has been served. Retribution is a type of sentencing involving another form of retaliation. Retribution means "paying back" the offender for what he or she has

Capital Punishment is an issue that has been argued over from the dinner table in

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.

Since the declaration of “the war on drugs”, society’s perspective relating to punishment of drug-involved offenders has been much too vindictive. Now, an offender is not allowed to be sent to treatment by a judge, he must go to jail. This is due to mandatory sentencing. Upcoming diversion programs are an excellent alternative to “hard time” for qualifying drug offenders. These programs are becoming very popular and evidence shows that they are greatly beneficial, not only to the accused, but to society as a whole. Diversion programs benefit many regarding the increase in community involvement and safer city streets, rehabilitation of offenders, and financial means. The criminal justice system is currently at a stand still in regards to convicted

A rising controversy surrounding our justice system is whether or not racial disparity exists when sentencing. Early studies concluded that racial disparity in sentencing was a result of discrimination (Spohn, Gruhl & Welch, 1981). For decades, these disparities in sentencing have led to considerable empirical research, and helped to shape major policy changes (Starr & Rehali, 2013). In this paper, existing research focused on whether there are sentencing disparities between Caucasians and minorities will be presented. This paper will also examine whether there is evidence of a biased justice system or are minorities simply just more involved in crime.

Since the origination of drug treatment courts, there has been countless numbers of offenders who have successfully completed the program and fought their way past drug abuse. There are also a handful of offenders who may have struggled to change their drug abuse or addiction, and fell short of completing the program. In this second part of my report, I will be determining whether drug treatment court programs actually work. To accomplish this task, I will be reviewing three empirical studies to evaluate how effective the program truly is.

Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against

After legal challenges began on behalf of defendants disputing the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act and the Guidelines, the Commission was given the task of monitoring the effects of federal sentencing practices and revising amendments to the Guidelines if problems arose for congressional approval. In 1990, Congress directed the Commission to respond to a series of questions raised in regards to the Guidelines, the effects of mandatory minimums and options and options for Congress to exercise its legislative power in statutory directive and organization (1991 U.S.S.C. Report). The 1991 report was a “preliminary assessment of short-tem effects” of the Guidelines on federal sentencing practice (1991 U.S.S.C. Report). The report conducted empirical research study requested by Congress to “assess the effect of mandatory minimum sentencing provisions on the eliminating unwarranted sentencing disparity as well as description of the interaction between mandatory minimum sentencing provisions and plea agreements” (1991 U.S.S.C. Report).

Currently, drug courts have been proven to be successful at reducing recidivism of offenders. In the United States there are about 120,000 people receiving help in order to rehabilitate them and to try to reduce the chances of recidivism (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2011). These programs require individuals to participate in the programs for a minimum of one year. During this year the individuals are required to appear in court and be drug tested at

This research is based on several journal articles, online databases, and textbooks. The information extracted from these sources of content is used for the analysis of this study. Furthermore, the information gathered from this research is specifically used to focus on the difficulties that juveniles face when sentenced to life without parole. Instead of having the opportunity to serve their sentence through probation or parole, some juveniles are sentenced to face irreversible damages. Thus, it is imperative to understand that there are programs through community corrections that benefit juveniles far more than life without parole. The information gathered provides society with a better understanding of the sanctions in the Juvenile Justice

Each year in America many people received prison sentences for crimes that pose little if any danger or harm to our society. Mandatory Minimum Sentencing in the American Justice System has long been argued by both Lawmakers and the public. We will go over some of the history of mandatory minimum sentences as well as the many pros and cons to these types of sentences. Some examples of pros and cons are the overall effect on public safety, the effect on the offenders, the cost to taxpayers, the lack of discretion for Judge’s, and whether the law should be repealed.

In the United States the prison population has increased from 300,000 in 1972 to 2.2 million

The Different Aims of Sentencing There are a number of reasons why a society punishes offenders. These include, among others, to discourage the offender from committing further crimes (individual deterrence), to help the offender, so that he or she won’t offend again (rehabilitation), to prevent the offender from committing further crimes through imprisonment (incapacitation) and to show society’s disapproval of the crime (denunciation). Retribution is to punish on the premise that it is a payback for the offence (Retribution carries with it the notion of “Do the crime, do the time”) Reparation is aimed at compensating the victim of the crime usually by ordering the offender to pay order to

Crime and punishment has made some tremendous changes since the early modern time of the 1600s. A period where a wife, could be found guilty of being a scold, in other words, nagging her husband. Punishments for this crime consist of the wife being duck into the river or pond using a ducking stool that is said to still exist in Canterbury in Kent. The Scold’s Bridle was another form of punishment us for a nagging wife, she was made to wear this bridle as a form of embarrassment for her actions against her husband. In early modern times the homeless made people uncomfortable and scared because of the change in the land that cause them to move from their traditional rural livelihood and became known as vagabonds. If the homeless