Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Theories Of Restorative Justice
Sentencing in the criminal justice system
Deterrence theory of sentencing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Explain sentencing and the theories behind it. Include the sentencing models and how they are supposed to work. The main purpose of sentencing is to punish the offender and to set a precedent to deter others from doing the same. The five main purposes of sentencing are the deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation, and restorative justice. The sentencing model states that judges and juries evaluate the guilt of the offender. To being with, sentencing has to be fair and cannot discriminate on factors of race, gender. Or religion. Deterrence is the first rule of sentencing as it is based on a principle that punishment would prevent the offender from recommitting the offense another time. The theory behind deterrence is the idea …show more content…
A common focus of rehabilitation states that “criminality is a disease that can be cured”. The theory states that many offenders who are let into rehabilitation are usually treated with medical or drug treatments. The rehabilitation sentencing theory is mainly only given to children and or first-time offenders and not repeat offenders because they obviously have not learned from their past mistakes and have no hope left. The mentality is to find people who are capable of being cured and are able to get another chance in life. Finally, restorative justice is the theory of rehabilitating the victims and not the offenders. While rehabilitation mainly focuses on the offender, restorative justice focuses on getting the offender and victim together to be able to change and address the damage that was done. The goal is to remove the harm done to the victim by having them work together in the hope of …show more content…
Firstly, indeterminate sentencing gives a great variety for the judge on how long he can sentence a criminal. In many cases “prison authorities, not the judge, who determined the term of the sentence to be served”. This model worked by giving major power to the officials in power. They are supposed to work with discretion and ability to change the length of the sentence with please, but can result in intentional and unintentional discrimination to the offender. The structured sentencing models were created in order to remove the faults of indeterminate sentencing. Determinate sentencing is a fixed set of incarceration dates for judges to decide upon. The judge uses fixed terms based upon the crime that was committed. The set term to serve can be reduced by help of parole or good behavior. Unlike indeterminate sentencing, in determinate, the offender actually knows when he or she will be released from jail. This sentencing mandate was made to ensure that all offenders receive an equal sentence and are not judged. The judge cannot give a random amount of time just as he pleases, so this helps make trails fair and equal. Secondly, mandatory sentencing is where the judge cannot alter the incarceration time for an offender and mainly it is because they have been drug or firearm charges. A fixed sentence is imposed and guarantees a fair trial that can’t be altered at the judge’s discretion. Under no circumstances can an
Mandatory sentencing refers to the practice of parliament setting a fixed penalty for the commission of a criminal offence. Mandatory sentencing was mainly introduced in Australia to: prevent crime, to incapacitate the offenders, to deter offenders so they don’t offend again, to create a stronger retribution and to eliminate inconsistency. There is a firm belief that the imposition of Mandatory sentencing for an offence will have a deterrent effect on the individual and will send a forcible message to the offenders. Those in favour argue that it will bring consistency in sentencing and conciliate public concern about crime and punishment.
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.
This paper will be focusing on the courts as the specific sub-system in the criminal justice system. As said in the book the court system is responsible for charging criminal suspects, carrying out trials, and sentencing a person convicted of a crime. The fear of crime influences criminal justice policies in the court system. One way it does this is with the courts sentencing. Courts are able to give out severe punishments as a method of deterrence. This specific type of deterrence would be general deterrence. The book says that general deterrence theory should work if the punishment is clear, severe, and done swiftly. According to this theory, crime rate should drop because people will fear the punishment. The other way fear of crime influences
There are several types of punishment that can be inflicted upon an offender including, fines, community sanctions and imprisonment (The Judicial Conference of Australia, 2007). Punishment is described as a sanction which inflicts a certain amount of pain and loss on the offender, used for payback and deter (The Judicial Conference of Australia, 2007; Carlsmith, Darley, & Robinson, 2002). There are three ways society justifies punishing offenders, through the
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 mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
According to the National Institute of Justice truth in sentencing refers to a range of sentencing practices that aim to reduce the uncertainty about the length of time that offenders must serve in prison. Throughout the United States, there has been much legislative activity related to truth in sentencing. “The Truth in Sentencing movement began in 1984 during the extreme overcrowding crises that plagued America during the 1980s and 1990s” (Timothy S. Carr 2008). There were a few discrepancies between the sentence imposed by the judge and the amount of time the offender served in prison. TIS was put in affect to seek the disagreement. States were encourage by the federal government to increase the use of incarceration. If states decided to increase their incarceration they were funded a federal grant to construct, develop, expand, or improve correctional facilities in order to ensure that prison cell space was available for confinement of offenders. There were federal efforts to motivate prisons to increase their incarceration to earn the federally funded grant through two programs called The Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-sentencing (TIS). To receive VOI funding, States needed to give assurance that it will implement policies that guaranteed that violent offender serve majority of their sentences and also guarantee that the time serve was respectively related to the offender’s status and to keep the public safe.
The primary principle of sentencing is stated under section 718.1 of the Criminal Code, “a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.” In other words the sentence must be fair to the offender while holding them responsible under mens rea; having a guilty mind. This idea holds that punishment has to be appropriate based on crime committed.
Indeterminate sentencing involves the judge handing down the sentence, specifying what the maximum and the minimum sentence is. However, the actual length of time served is determined by the parole board. Determinate sentencing involves prisoners being released early for good behavior. In other words, these inmates are given credits for good behavior or for participation in projects, experiments or educational programs (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011). The credits, in turn, reduce the sentencing.
Determinate sentencing encompasses sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimum sentence, and enhanced sentences for certain crimes. The judge will take in consideration of the person charged and the details of the crime when he determines the sentence. The system has a mandatory minimum and enhanced statute that prevents the judge on his/her discretion for the terms of a sentencing of the person. These determinate sentencing statutes were put in place since 1980 to deter crime. The laws in most states dictated what crimes received what determinate sentence. The product of the determinate sentencing was form the war on drugs. These laws where to deter drugs by being harsh and hard on people who where committing the drug crimes. Then in 1990 the "three strikes-and-you're-out" law was used for anyone who was convicted of a third felony. The law had a term of 25 years to life for anyone convicted of a third felony crime. Determinate sentencing eliminates parole boards and credit for participation in rehabilitation
As the purpose of restorative justice is to mend the very relationship between the victim, offender, and society, communities that embrace restorative justice foster an awareness on how the act has harmed others. Braithwaite (1989) notes that by rejecting only the criminal act and not the offender, restorative justice allows for a closer empathetic relationship between the offender, victims, and community. By acknowledging the intrinsic worth of the offender and their ability to contribute back to the community, restorative justice shows how all individuals are capable of being useful despite criminal acts previous. This encourages offenders to safely reintegrate into society, as they are encouraged to rejoin and find rapport with the community through their emotions and
Crime usually has the highest penalty, but judges are free to choose all kinds of options - imprisonment, probation, and fines. The Parole Board decides the release date. The principle behind the indeterminate sentences is to hope that the prison can fix some criminals and that different people react differently to punishment. Prison officials generally prefer an indeterminate sentence because the prospect of early release makes prisoners motivated by passive imprisonment. In cases indeterminate sentencing, the goal is to show that the most progressive offender will be detained to the minimum deadline, not the minimum duration. The decision took into account the crimes of the individual offenders (including the mitigation or aggravation of the circumstances), the history of the crimes, the conduct in prisons and the efforts for rehabilitation. Criminal offenders can also submit statements. At least, in theory, there is a careful and concrete assessment before criminals are released into the community. Critics argue that the problem with the indeterminate sentencing of the judgment is that it places too much power on the Parole Board, resulting in arbitrary and discriminatory results. They often accuse that if a minority has no relationship with a prisoner, he or she will be subjected to excessively harsh sentences on the parole board, and less credible criminals will be released
The American prison system has long touted the principal of deterrence – meaning that crime can be controlled by giving very harsh sentences to those who are caught, hoping that future crimes will be avoided because a would be perpetrator sees and fears what the potential punishment of following through with such an act might be. The idea that a single person’s punishment is going to keep others from committing a crime a key argument for our system of crime and punishment. This paper is going to focus on this currently failing policy of deterrence, examining its true nature, and then discuss its place, if any, that it has in our law enforcement system.
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.
“Restorative justice is an approach to crime and other wrongdoings that focuses on repairing harm and encouraging responsibility and involvement of the parties impacted by the wrong.” This quote comes from a leading restorative justice scholar named Howard Zehr. The process of restorative justice necessitates a shift in responsibility for addressing crime. In a restorative justice process, the citizens who have been affected by a crime must take an active role in addressing that crime. Although law professionals may have secondary roles in facilitating the restorative justice process, it is the citizens who must take up the majority of the responsibility in healing the pains caused by crime. Restorative justice is a very broad subject and has many other topics inside of it. The main goal of the restorative justice system is to focus on the needs of the victims, the offenders, and the community, and focus
According to David Garland, punishment is a legal process where violators of the criminal law are condemned and sanctioned with specified legal categories and procedures (Garland, 1990). There are different forms and types of punishment administered for various reasons and can either be a temporary or lifelong type of punishment. Punishment can be originated as a cause from parents or teachers with misbehaving children, in the workplace or from the judicial system in which crimes are committed against the law. The main aim of punishment is to demonstrate to the public, the victim and the offender that justice is to be done, to reduce criminal activities and to deter people from wanting to commit any form of crime against the law. In other words it is a tool used to eliminate the bad in society or to deter people from committing criminal activities.