Laws and Innovations
The legislative changes that have affected the lengths of sentences being handed down are the minimum mandatory sentences, truth-in-sentencing laws, three strikes laws, sentencing guidelines, and sentencing enhancements. Policy changes and legislative changes have made longer sentences for certain offences. Minimum mandatory sentencing “laws set minimum sentences for certain crimes that judges cannot lower, even for extenuating circumstances. The most common of these laws deal with drug offenses and set mandatory minimum sentences for possession of a drug over a certain amount” (Attorneys.com, 2014). Mandatory minimum sentencing laws affect your sentence by giving judges guidelines to follow when setting your punishment. Judges have “less discretion in setting your
…show more content…
It is these guidelines and rules that a judge follows when deciding what sentence that the defendant will be given when they are found guilty. The United States Sentencing Commission makes up the sentencing guidelines. “The sentencing guidelines help the judges to resolve their confusion. Sentencing guidelines are designed to ensure the consistency of sentencing in United States courts” (USLegal, 2014).
Sentencing enhancements mean harsher punishments. Sentencing enhancements are circumstances and facts that are presented in a case. These allow the judge to “increase or enhance the sentence that normally applies to the crime. Some examples of circumstances and facts that lead to a sentence enhancement include, weapons, locations, victims age, prior convictions, and being an habitual offender” (Lawyers.com, 2014). The law that you violated will determine what enhancements you will receive. Sentencing enhancements are designed to help deter
Rehabilitation is another objective of sentencing. Rehabilitation is different from incapacitation and deterrence in that it does not always involve getting put behind bars. An offender may receive a sentence of rehabilitation where they are released back into society to complete a community based sentence (Goff, 2014 p.296).
For a majority of the 20th century, sentencing policies had a minimal effect on social inequality (Western and Pettit 2002). In the early 1970s, this began to change when stricter sentencing policies were enacted (Western and Pettit 2002). Sentencing laws such as determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three-strikes laws were enacted with the purpose of achieving greater consistency, certainty, and severity in sentencing (National Research Council 2014). Numerous inequalities involving race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status have generated an unprecedented rate of incarceration in America, especially among minority populations (Western and Pettit 2010). With numerous social inequalities currently
The majority of prisoners incarcerated in America are non-violent offenders. This is due mainly to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which is a method of prosecution that gives offenders a set amount of prison time for a crime they commit if it falls under one of these laws, regardless of their individual case analysis. These laws began in the 1980s, when the use of illegal drugs was hitting an all time high (Conyers 379). The United States began enacting legislature that called for minimum sentencing in an effort to combat this “war on drugs.” Many of these laws give long sentences to first time offenders (Conyers). The “three strikes” law states that people convicted of drug crimes on three separate occasions can face life in prison. These laws were passed for political gain, as the American public was swept into the belief that the laws would do nothing other than help end the rampant drug crimes in the country. The laws are still in effect today, and have not succeeded to discourage people from using drugs. Almost fifty percent...
The criminal justice system has been in place the United States for centuries. The system has endured many changes throughout the ages. The need for a checks and balances system has been a priority for just as long. Federal sentencing guidelines were created to help create equal punishments among offenders. Judges are given the power of sentencing and they are not immune to opinions, bias, and feelings. These guidelines are set in place to allow the judge to keep their power but keep them within a control group of equality. Although there are a lot of pros to sentencing guidelines there are also a lot of cons. Research has shown that sentencing guidelines have allowed the power to shift from judges to prosecutors and led to sentencing disparity based on sex, race, and social class.
Starting in 1970s, there has been an upward adjustment to sentencing making punishment more punitive and sentencing guidelines more strict. Martinson's (1974) meta-analyzies reviewed over 200 studies and concluded that nothing works in terms of rehabilitating prisoners. Rehabilitating efforts were discontinued. The War on Drugs campaign in 1970s incarcerated thousands of non-violent drug offenders into the system. In 1865, 34.3% of prison population were imprisoned for drug violation. By 1995, the percentage grew to 59.9% (figure 4.1, 104). Legislation policies like the Third Strikes laws of 1994 have further the severity of sentencing. The shift from rehabilitation to human warehouse marks the end of an era of trying to reform individuals and the beginnings of locking inmates without preparation of their release. Along with the reform in the 1970s, prosecutors are given more discretion at the expense of judges. Prosecutors are often pressure to be tough on crime by the socie...
Corrections are a necessary tool to protect society from those who do harm to others or to others property. Depending on the type of crime that was committed, and if the crime is considered a state or federal charge, also depends on where the person sentenced will do his time. There are four main sentencing options available; prison, probation, probation and confinement, and prison and community split. When a person is sentenced to do their time in prison most likely they will go to a state or federal prison. If a person is ordered probation, it prevents them from going to jail but they have stipulations on their probation. This is called intermediate sanctions, which are the various new correctional options used as adjuncts to and part of probation. Some intermediate sanctions include restitution, fines, day fines, community service, intensive supervised probation, house arrest, electronic monitoring, and shock incarceration.
When it comes to crimes some criminals tend to serve longer or short sentencing due to what kind of crime was committed. Also, it depends on how the person acts and what type of judge the criminal come across. However; when it comes to criminals like drug dealers and pedophiles ( sex offenders) their sentencing are different and very absurd. In the state of South Carolina, drug dealer should not serve long sentences than Pedophiles (sex offenders)? Due to the numerous crimes like the pedophiles tends to get off easily with two years in jail, house arrest and register on the sex offender list. While the dealers sit in the cell for over 10 years with no parole or probation. In the state of South Carolina they need to fix the charges due to legalization
Sentencing of a convicted criminal is ultimately in the hands of the judge. Although there are standards that may be suggested for a judge to follow that work in accordance with the crime committed, by no means is a judge required to follow those suggested standards when making a decision. In the end, the final verdict is left up to the judge presiding over the case and they can do with that how they feel fit. Which is why in the case of Rhonda Kuzak, the judge has decided to go a less conventional route with her punishment. Because of the previous convictions Kuzak has on her record, a simple fine and/or jail time will not be what the court ordered. Kuzak has been arrested and convicted three prior times for possession of drugs, cocaine to
“The Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual states that one of the three objectives Congress sought to achieve in enacting the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was “reasonable uniformity” in sentencing by narrowing the wide disparity in sentences imposed for similar criminal offenses committed by similar offenders (Spohn, 2013).”
Sentencing disparity refers to the differences in sentences that are passed down in the same instances. This can happen on a variety of fronts. It can occur with judges, in different states, states v. federal, different prosecutors, among different victims, etc. (Criminal – Sentencing…2017 p.4) A more specific definition from USLegal.com states that, “Sentence disparity refers to an inequality in criminal sentencing which is the result of unfair or unexplained causes, rather than a legitimate use of discretion in the application of the law.”. There are a variety of ways that sentencing disparity affects the justice system. There are three factors that disparity looms around; they are gender disparity, racial disparity, and age disparity. (4
The aims of sentencing include punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection. Punishment is used to punish the offender for their wrong conduct to an extent and in a way that is just in all circumstances and is intended to show public abhorrence from the offence. An example of a sentencing option that may be used to punish an offender includes imprisonment. A recent sentence imposed in the Tasmanian Supreme Court aimed at punishing an offender is the case of Michael Robert Keeling v State of Tasmania in which the judge needed to balance the need to punish the offender and the need to deter him and others from such conduct while keeping the best interests of the community in mind. Deterrent sentences are aimed at deterring not only the offender from further offences but also potential offenders. Specific deterrence is concerned with punishing an offender in the expectation they will not offend again whereas general deterrence is related to the possibility that people in general will be deterred from committing crime by the threat of punishment. An example of ...
To begin, Mandatory minimum sentences result in prison overcrowding, and based on several studies, it does not alleviate crime, for example crimes such as shoplifting or solicitation. These sentencing guidelines do not allow a judge to take into consideration the first time offender, differentiate the deviance level of the offender, and it does not allow for the judge to alter a punishment or judgment to each individual case. When mandatory sentencing came into effect, the drug lords they were trying to stop are not the ones being affected by the sentences. It is the nonviolent, low-level drug users who are overcrowding the prisons as a result of these sentences. Both the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have determined that mandatory sentencing is not an effective way to deter crime. Studies show that mandatory minimums have gone downhill due to racial a...
This paper will be focusing on the controversial issue of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada. There has been much debate over this topic, as it has quickly become implemented for the sentencing of drug offenders, drug-related crimes and banned firearm offences. I will argue that every case that comes through the criminal justice system is different and deserves a fair trial with a sentence that is not already determined for them. There have been many cases where the judge has no discretion in the sentence due to the mandatory minimum sentences pre-determined for the case, no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors were. I will argue that the mandatory minimum sentences in Canada should be reduced or eliminated as they result in very few positive outcomes for the offender and society, increase recidivism rates, are very expensive, and in many cases are detrimental and unjust. Throughout this essay I will discuss two main cases that represent an unjust sentencing outcome due to the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. I will stress how it should be the discretion of the judge to individualize the sentences based on the offender’s mitigating factors, aggravating factors and background. Leroy Smickle is the first case discussed through the essay, which ended with the judge striking down the mandatory minimum sentences in Ontario due to the possession of a loaded gun. Robert Latimer was also a highly controversial Canadian case about a father who killed his mentally disabled daughter out of compassion to end her severe suffering. I will be using many academic articles throughout this essay to give empirical support to the overall argument.
Sentencing models are plans or strategies developed for imposing punishment for crimes committed. During the 19th century these punishments were normally probation, fines and flat sentences. When someone was given a flat sentence, he or she had to serve the entire sentence without parole or early release. However, by the end of the 19th century the new models were developed. These new models include indeterminate, determinate, advisory/voluntary guidelines, presumptive and mandatory minimum sentencing (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011).