Sentencing is defined as the punishment given to an individual who has committed a crime. Sentencing and punishment is nothing new to criminology and has been the pivotal part of the criminal justice system since it began; what is in question is how that sentence will affect the individual and the greater society in the long term; sentencing and punishment although a prominent part of the system has not received major change since the implementation of classical theory and may need so due to the current changes emerging in society. Females have often been subject to inequality within the criminal justice system in regards to sentencing and crimes committed. This essay will conclude which argument proposes a better answer to sentencing and punishment …show more content…
in relation of male and female offenders. The purpose of sentencing as regarded by the NSW Law reform commission is to achieve the goals of “retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation and denunciation”, this is what provides judges with discretion and the tools to provide adequate and fair sentencing procedures as a final ruling, but how would this differ if judges didn’t have the final say? Would the penal system benefit from removing the ‘principle of proportionality’ concept in favour of a more individualistic form of punishment based on the nature of the offender and other individual factors? Furthermore, if sentencing were to change to constant review rather than in accordance with the crime, would this open the criminal justice system to corruption and a lack of fairness? One must note in recent years the number of female offenders under criminal justice supervision has grown significantly and is now compiled as 17% of the offending population (Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2003). The reasons for offending in both genders does not differ, however what is interesting to note is female offenders are at lower risk of imprisonment (Uggen, 1998). It is undecided as to why females are treated more leniently than males; this could be due to males viewing females as weaker and having to protect them from the criminal justice system or less likely to re-offend due to the nature, the argument is described as chivalry vs patriarchy. Sentencing and punishment is based upon the ‘principle of proportionality’, meaning the more severe the crime the harsher the punishment. This reflects the values of society in showing the offender this behaviour is not acceptable within the environment we live in. A key aspect of the goals when sentencing is rehabilitation, this concept is aimed at stopping the person from re-offending in the future it seeks at encouraging the individual to reform whilst protecting society. The Australian institute of criminology identifies that 60% of offenders have been imprisoned before. This is an alarmingly high rate and there are additional factors to this but the current system we have clearly is not working and change is only imminent. The establishment of mandatory sentencing introduced the capability for criminals to be convicted for a minimum sentence if they met a statue of criteria for that crime. The goal of mandatory sentencing was to combat the mistakes that could be made by judges regarding discretion; the ideology was to reduce crime by removing those individuals from the streets. Mandatory sentencing is to prevent crime through a simplistic context “for as long as offenders are incarcerated they cannot commit crimes out of prison” (Sherman et al. 1998). This is effective in the sense that having removing that offender from society it removes the risk of reoffending as he/she is incarcerated and no longer a danger. Having a sentencing procedure with conclusive defined consistent principles, removes judicial discretion. Although judges are set to preside over the court without bias, they are still human and can be subject to making examples of criminals or being far too lenient due to media pressure. Having a criminal justice system that uses the principles of proportionality further emphasises equal justice under the law; which was endeavoured to be achieved since the implementation of classical theory into our systems. Furthermore having defined legislation which determines the sentencing of criminals for a certain crime removes the leniency that can be applied by judges on criminals especially in regards to female offenders. On the other hand, sentencing must be fair and all cases do not have the same circumstances which thus leave the decision up to judicial discretion there will inevitably be cases where an offender will receive an extensively high sentence. Furthermore increasing the sentence for a particular crime does not deter individuals from committing that crime as they are not acting rationally; mandatory sentencing will affect those who were less likely to re-offend than those who have committed previous crimes. The issue at hand is what system will provide the fairest outcome for offender’s society and victims The three strikes statute in America is the most recognisable form of mandatory sentencing, it is also widely recognised that this has created overpopulation in American prisons as a result of African American inmates; (Reitz) 2001, found that 50% of the prison growth is attributed to African American individuals. Mandatory sentencing procedures may actually be perceived as what the public want and achieving the needs of society but upon looking at research it is very clear that it has not attained the goals it intended to. A National crime justice survey was taken in the US and 61% of respondents regarded sentence severity as a problem, of those 61%, 94% believed sentencing was too lenient on society (Myers, 1996). This is a direct contrast to the perceived nature of sentencing in that we are not currently achieving the goals society has intended. Open ended sentencing, also known as indeterminate sentencing is the idea of sentencing guidelines which are not final and can be adjusted on the individual. Judges remain capable of establishing maximum and minimum sentences but it is the offender through good behaviour in his/her time in prison that can define the sentence. This allows offenders to actively work towards rehabilitation instead of developing criminogenic tendencies in a longer prison sentence. An issue with this sentencing is who is reviewing the individual in most cases it is the parole board and just like the issue with judicial sentencing procedures, humans can be liable to bias and manipulation it then becomes less about good behaviour at all times but about connections to individual parole board members. One important factor to note is that both indeterminate and mandatory sentencings have been used in our society thus making it relatively easy to judge the effectiveness of both. The incarceration rate in the United States was relatively stable from 1930 until 1975. On average, 106 inmates were incarcerated for every 100,000 individuals in the population (MacKenzie 2001). In 1975 when open ended sentencing ceased activity in the criminal justice system the incarceration rate exploded to 202 inmates for every 100,000 adults. It is also imperative to note that the increase in rates differed in gender whilst women make a small percentile of inmates the increase in female imprisonment rates grew faster than the rate of men. Blumsten and Beck (1999) concluded that the increase in imprisonment was not due to the amount of offences being committed. It is viable to say that increasing the prison population has a double edged sword. It is correct that those who are incarcerated cannot re-offend whilst in prison temporarily reducing the crime rate; however it is also widely noted that upon leaving prison the re-offending rate is very high. This is due to the repetitive criminogenic nature of the prison environment. Critics of mandatory sentencing in regards to the principle of proportionality deem that sentencing is often targeted at marginalised sectors of society.
Those in society who are poorer are more likely to be subject of mandatory sentencing schemes as seen in California when a man was incarcerated for 25 years for stealing a piece of pizza (vitiello 1997, p396). Summary offences should not be the target of mandatory sentencing, and only indictable offences to severely punish those who have less discipline to reform. Furthermore, legislation cannot define the conditions in which crimes are committed; this removes individual discretion on the case and creates a robotic society where humans no longer have the capability to understand …show more content…
situations. In looking at all aspects of sentencing the costs on society have to be taken into consideration. It is far more expensive to incarcerate someone for a fixed period of time than to review their sentence on the merit of good behaviour. $60,000 is the cost of keeping one prisoner imprisoned for a year (Cowdery 1999, p291). Having a defined sentence for 10 years is a much larger strain on society than having a 10 year sentence with the capability of parole at 5. Not only does cost become reduced, but the future rehabilitation of individuals is greatly reduced the longer they are in prison. Consistency is fundamental for an equal justice system the power for judges to preside over a case and determine the outcome upon the information about the individual is a key indicator on the severity or leniency of the punishment.
Sentencing for a fixed period of time removes that notion. As previously outlined there is the possibility of unequal treatment of offenders who have done equal wrong (Braithwhite & pettit 1990, p21), the issue here is the introduction of mandatory sentencing becomes, parliament vs judges, which I feel judges who have actively seen the system in work for a number of years would be able to attend to more consistent results. Discretion is unavoidable in the criminal justice system (Brown et al. 2001, p121.) Judges and Juries are in a position to adapt to the case and review the sentence so it fits the nature of the offender and circumstances, where fixed sentencing does
not. The issue of gender discrimination in the criminal justice system cannot be answered by changing the template of the sentencing procedure when the subject is in regards to the treatment of females by a male dominated system. Mandatory sentencing would provide an equal distribution to the imprisonment rates of men and women; however that solves one issue. The fact is mandatory sentencing does not solve the issue of crime in society; each crime committed has different circumstances and requires a different form of review and correction. Rehabilitation is fundamental to a successful sentencing system and it has been shown that incarceration does not achieve that goal. Sentencing must be open-ended for both females and males, this may continue a trend of discretion between women and men in sentencing severity, but mandatory sentencing is not the answer. The increase in prison population and increased costs on society outweigh the temporary reduction in the crime rate by incarcerating the offender. Government funding would be better spent in educational programs to juveniles and adults in prison on an open-ended sentence.
An important issue that needs to be addressed within the Central Justice System is to have a reduction in the number of offenders in order to keep both society safe and reduce the population of prisons to an absolute minimum. A tool that is being widely used in order to manage and reduce recidivism rates among the average offender is the RNR model, however when it is used to treat different minority groups problems can arise as they all require different strategies in order to deal with their needs and make the model work. This essay will prove that the RNR model has the ability to reduce recidivism when it has been modified in order to accompany for the minority group of female offenders as well as highlight what challenges this specific group
Classical and contemporary theory helps to explain gendered crime patterns. The feminist school of criminology argue criminology and criminal theory is very masculine, all studies into criminal behaviour, have been developed from male statistics and tested on males. Very little research is conducted into female criminality, this may be because women who commit crime are more likely to be seen as evil or mentally ill rather than criminal, this is because women are labe...
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
Some unusual scenarios have come about due to these laws, particularly in California; some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life for such petty crimes as shoplifting golf clubs or stealing a slice of pizza from a child on the beach or a double sentence of 50 years to life for stealing nine video tapes from two different stores while child molesters, rapists and murderers serve only a few years. As a result of some of these scenarios the three strikes sentences have prompted harsh criticism not only within the United States but from outside the country as well (Campbell). Many questions have now arisen concerning the “three strikes” laws such as alternatives to incarceration for non-heinous crimes, what would happen if the state got rid of “strikes” and guaranteed that those convicted of a serious crime serve their full sentence? It is imperative to compare the benefits and the costs and the alternatives to incarceration when de...
The major goal of the Australian prison at the beginning of the 20th century was the removal of lawbreakers from their activities in society (King, 2001). The Australian legal system relies on deterrence (Carl et al, 2011, p. 119), that is, a system that has two key assumptions: (i) specific punishments imposed on offenders will ‘deter’ or prevent them from committing further crimes (ii) the fear of punishment will prevent others from committing similar crimes (Carl et al, 2011, p. 119). However it is not always the case that deterrence is successful as people commit crime without concern for punishment, thinking that they will get away with the crime committed (Jacob, 2011). Economists argue that crime is a result of individuals making choices
Hessick, C. (2010). Race and Gender as Explicit Sentencing Factors. Journal Of Gender, Race &
Embry, R., & Lyons, P. M. (2012). Sex-based sentencing: Sentencing discrepancies between male and female sex offenders. Feminist Criminology, 7(2), 146-162.
Statistical evidence has shown that women do in fact receive lesser and longer sentences when they are convicted of the similar crimes as men; such as drug related crimes (Coughenour, 1995). Criminologists provide different theories that explain the differences between male and female treatment in the criminal justice system. Once of the known theories that are express by the male counterpart that make up the criminal justice system is ‘chivalry’. By definition, ‘chivalry’ is the protection of women. This term start...
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...
Mandatory minimum sentencing is the practice of requiring a predetermined prison sentence for certain crimes. The most notable mandatory minimums are the ones implemented in the 70’s and 80’s, hoping to combat the rising drug problem. Mandatory minimum sentencing has existed in the United States nearly since its very birth, with the first mandatory minimums being put into place around 1790. Recently, as the marijuana laws of many states have scaled back in severity, the issue of mandatory minimums has caused controversy in the US. There are two distinct sides to the argument surrounding mandatory minimum sentencing. One group believes we have a moral obligation to our country requiring us to do no less than lock up anyone with illegal drugs
Not everyone loves the ideas of alternatives to prison because alternatives to prison seem to work only when there is a limited number of cases that adhere to the sentence, However, when places like California is spending more money on their prison systems than on actual education, alternatives to prison seem to be the best choice (David, 2006).
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws also take away input of judges on specific cases and disregard uniqueness of circumstances. For example, in 2013, there was a widowed 55 year-old woman named Shirley Schmitt in Iowa who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for producing about 50 grams of methamphetamine. These laws targeted major suppliers of drugs such as drug traffickers or cartels to protect society but in Schmitt’s case, she was only feeding her addiction (“‘Should Mandatory Sentencing Be Repealed? Yes." Women in Prison.”). Since this case fell under the mandatory minimum laws, the judge’s authority was not taken into account for sentencing. In the March 3, 2017 issue of the Congressional Quarterly Researcher titled “Women in Prison: Should they be treated differently than men?” the author, Sarah Glazer, gave an anecdote of
Provide the justifications for punishment in modern society. Punishment functions as a form of social control and is geared towards “imposing some unwanted burden such as fines, probations, imprisonment, or even death” on a convicted person in return for the crimes they committed (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). There are four main justifications for punishment and they are: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. There is also said to be a fifth justification of reintegration as well.
Although much of the current scholarly information dichotomizes justice into two schools of thought, it should be realized that true justice encompasses both punishment-centered and rehabilitation-centered ideas. Often times, these ideas co-occur to create a more realistic depiction of justice in practice. Furthermore, a more honest approach toward policy should be examined and openly discussed by the Department of Justice. This way, the citizenry who participate in the democracy of the United States can have a better understanding of the issues regarding the type of punitiveness towards offenders. Doing so would encourage a better understanding and more agreeable state of the justice system, one that should be characteristic of the democratic process.
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,