Criminal Justice System In The 18th Century

In colonial times, before the thought of American independence, the juries that handled all of the criminal cases were very important and considered tangible sentencers with a great amount of power. Many of the crimes committed were capital offenses such as murder. The result had two options, guilty and death or not guilty and freedom. There were certain situations that had set factors to determine the severity of the punishment or punishments that involved terms of many years. This was set in place because penitentiaries were not common until the eighteenth century. Jurors understood the basics of the criminal justice system and the impact of a guilty verdict on the defendant because of the relativity and straightforwardness of the criminal law and its penalty

structure. Also the ways that jurors are selected play a large role in the understanding of the law. They were picked from white men with property. Sometimes there were steps taken to try and get people that were more qualified to serve as jurors. On the other hand, jurors weren’t very representative of how we see it today. The similarities between the modern juries and colonial jurors are that they were both authorized to give a verdict without explanation. However, they both also differed. Colonial juries were urged to find both the facts and the guilt by following and paying close attention to the law. If capital punishment were inappropriate, they would decline to find the defendant guilty of a lesser crime in order to avoid being sentenced to death. This process is called jury nullification (Gertner, 2010). In the midst of the nineteenth century, things began to change drastically. We began to see different level punishments, more penitentiaries and reformatories, along with a more complicated set of sentencing outcomes. The duty of the jury now was to simply find the facts, and the judge would determine the law to put in place.

Soon after federal criminal law was in the forefront even though most prosecutions were still state based. With more access to education and a more professional realm of judges and lawyers the power of the jury declined. The jury also became more diverse. This was soon to be true come the twentieth century when the system focused on indeterminate sentencing and rehabilitation. Judges had a major role of sentencing. It was all left in their hands and the jury focused on liability. Congress took a back seat and only intervened when they wanted to increase the maximum penalty to certain crimes when it came to the demand of the public. The discretion of sentencing that is held by the judges is determined by the seriousness of the crimes. However, whatever the judge decides must remain within the statutory range. Judges and prosecutors have the most power within the court. There was little to no appellate review of sentencing. The rehabilitation model shaped the sentencing law; which is a penal philosophy that reinforced the role of the judge and limited the role of congress and the public (Gertner,

2010).
During the twentieth century, there was not much change to the way sentencing was done, but things began to change drastically over the passed few decades. There have been various sentencing reforms to evolve. Many of the influences for sentencing have come from philosophies; for instance, retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation and deterrence. Retributive factors focus on a notion of an eye for an eye, punishments made for revenge. Deterrence focuses on the trying to deter the offender from committing future crimes and trying to prevent people from offending. Giving sentences that will raise the cost of crime does this. Incapacitation argues that effective sentencing focuses solely on taking the offender out of the community and away from society. Once they are secluded, they will no longer be able to commit crimes against the public. Finally,