Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on alternative to imprisonment
Essay on alternative to imprisonment
Reflection about human rights law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
People who break the law should be imprisoned to accept their punishment. Here comes a question how long shall they be imprisoned? Whether it should be long or short? What if after a long prison time,prisoners don’t repent and meanwhile the government has to pay a lot for them.We think the short sentence is better and maybe we can review these questions in ways as follows.
There are many reasons supporting that shorter sentences are better than longer sentences. Firstly, some people who were put into prison could commit a crime just because of impulsion. According to a recent research on China Daily says that about 57% of criminal who were investigated are under twenty years old. And only 10% of them of education are higher than primary school. It means that the cause of their crime are not only from themselves but also from the situation of their family, the development of economics and the degree of the society. Perhaps they commit a crime just because of curiosity, the lack of education. Shorter sentences can give them a chance to turn over a new page . After the sentences, they can get more education. So the motivation should be an important standard to judge a crime.
Secondly, I think a shorter sentence can give people more hope to donate to our society. Most of people in prison are young. They have ability to build up our society. It will be better if we regard them as labor force (Of course after they are willing to correct their faults from their heart). I believe that everyone is kind when they are born. The punishment of long or short is not important. The most important thing is to change the mind of a person.
Why shorter sentence is better than longer sentence? One of the reasons can be related to mon...
... middle of paper ...
...his family with so long time.
In conclusion,although the long sentence can reflect the intention of punishing criminals, we have four reasons to reject long sentence. Paying attention to the intention of criming, wasting ability of building up our country, wasting money of tax payer and destroying humanity prove it strongly. Reasons mentioned above let us know the bad impacts to their family and development of the society.At the meantime we figure out some other ways to replace long sentence,which can benefit the world and achieve the situation of win-win. For example, we can give better and longer education to change their thought to achieve a longer chance.This measure could not only affect a generation, but their children and even relatives.We think it more meaningful than a long sentence. Therefore,we think shorter sentence is better than longer sentence.
One of the problems with the law is its principle of removing judicial discretion. This severely hinders a judge's ability to make a punishment fit the crime. While some felons deserve life in prison, it is unfair to create a standard that would force judges to sentence offenders to life imprisonment for relatively minor crimes.
In Western cultures imprisonment is the universal method of punishing criminals (Chapman 571). According to criminologists locking up criminals may not even be an effective form of punishment. First, the prison sentences do not serve as an example to deter future criminals, which is indicated, in the increased rates of criminal behavior over the years. Secondly, prisons may protect the average citizen from crimes but the violence is then diverted to prison workers and other inmates. Finally, inmates are locked together which impedes their rehabilitation and exposes them too more criminal
All the laws, which concern with the administration of justice in cases where an individual has been accused of a crime, always begin with the initial investigation of the crime and end either with imposition of punishment or with the unconditional release of the person. Most of the time it is the duty of the members of constituted authorities to inflict the punishment. Thus it can be said that almost all of the punishments are an act of self-defense and an act of defending the community against different types of offences. According to Professor Hart “the ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is deterrent but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime” (Hart P.65). Whenever the punishments are inflicted having rationale and humane factor in mind and not motivated by our punitive passions and pleasures then it can be justified otherwise it is nothing but a brutal act of terrorism. Prison System: It has often been argued that the criminals and convicted prisoners are being set free while the law-abiding citizens are starving. Some people are strongly opposed the present prison and parole system and said that prisoners are not given any chance for parole. Prisons must provide the following results: Keep dangerous criminals off the street Create a deterrent for creating a crime The deterrent for creating a crime can be justified in the following four types Retribution: according to this type, the goal of prison is to give people, who commit a crime, what they deserved Deterrence: in this type of justification, the goal of punishment is to prevent certain type of conduct Reform: reform type describes that crime is a disease and so the goal of punishment is to heal people Incapacitation: the...
I agree with this utilitarian method of law. The greater good is served by getting them of the streets. The punishment of the criminals definitely benefits society, and finally there is a means to reach an end.
The logical reasoning by law makers was that the threat of longer prison term would serve to deter repeat offenders, and would incapacitate the most dangerous of criminals for a longer amount of time (1 Marvell, Moody 90). Lawmakers assumption was that those that have committed crime in the past and have been convicted of that crime would be far less likely to commit crime a 2nd or 3rd time when faced with much harsher sentencing when facing the possibility of life in prison time (1 Marvell, Moody 90). However it has not been proven that the three strike sentencing initiative has had any tangible effect on deterring crime time (1 Marvell, Moody 90).
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
There is no simple right or wrong solution, there is simply choosing the best and most appropriate choice for the specific case. Choosing to use the combination of rehabilitation and deterrence is quite conflicting of one another. But some cases call for help and treatment, and so call for punishment. There are so many factors that contribute to a case, that the decision can be altered so fast by the smallest detail. The criminal justice system is complex, brutal, and sometimes unfair, but deciding on the right goal for the criminal can make all the
The sentence for murder appears to be getting less severe as time passes. Crime is rampant and out of control. There must be a system to prevent these people from committing such grievous acts (Balanced Politics). Time spent in jail often is a means of stopping a few; but much more is needed in order to prevent recidivism. In some court cases a wide range of punishments that would cut the rate of crime should be available to prosecutors and judges (Balanced Politics). A judge could sentence a person to life in prison; but the criminal justice system may set this very same person free after ten or fifteen years in prison. Why must we put our trust in a judicial system that will let these vicious offenders out in society after ten or fifteen years in prison (Death Penalty). The judge may impose a life sent...
...ngs Police Department. Life imprisonment with out the possibility of parole is an equally effective, cheaper, and more humane way to punish capital criminals. Not only is the cost of executing a prisoner ridiculous, but the death penalty has in no way shown that it deters criminal activity. The abolishment of the death penalty is necessary to achieve the utopian society we as a nation so desire.
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.
For centuries, prisons have been attempting to reinforce good behavior through various methods of punishment, some more severe than others. There are several types of punishments which include “corporal punishment, public humiliation, penal bondage, and banishment for more severe offenses, as well as capital punishment”(Linklater, V). Punishments in which are more severe pose the question “Has it gone too far?” and is stripping away the rights and humanity of a criminal justified with the response it is for the protection of the people? Is justice really served? Although prison systems are intense and the experience is one of a kind for sure, it does little to help them as statistics show “two-in-five inmates nationwide return to jail within three years of release”(Ascharya, K).
Inmates in prison know that no matter what their sentence if they behave good or bad they will nearly get out at the same time from 9 years if good to 10 if bad, or a 15% reduction leaving them to not bother trying to rehabilitate themselves due to the little amount it will affect their stay making them more likely to return. It is suggested that if we increase the inmates time from the normal minimum bottom line sentence they would receive normally and gave them a much higher sentence for acting badly they would be forced to attend classes such as anger management and treatments for themselves making them more fit to leave the prisons and join our society. This in return would decrease the amount of needed prison
Every civilization in history has had rules, and citizens who break them. To this day governments struggle to figure out the best way to deal with their criminals in ways that help both society and those that commit the crimes. Imprisonment has historically been the popular solution. However, there are many instances in which people are sent to prison that would be better served for community service, rehab, or some other form of punishment. Prison affects more than just the prisoner; the families, friends, employers, and communities of the incarcerated also pay a price. Prison as a punishment has its pros and cons; although it may be necessary for some, it can be harmful for those who would be better suited for alternative means of punishment.
This may be a good type of sentence for someone that may be a first time offender, or maybe one that the judge may feel has a good chance at being rehabilitated. One problem with this sentence is that some offenders may slip through the cracks and get a reduced sentence and returned to society not at all rehabilitated ("Indeterminate Sentencing", n.d.).... ... middle of paper ... ...
Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law since by doing so; it discourages him from committing crime again while making him or her pay for their crimes. Retribution does not mean inflicting physical punishment by incarceration only, but it also may include things like rehabilitation and financial retribution among other things. The last purpose of criminal law is to protect the community from criminals. Criminal law acts as the means through which the society protects itself from those who are harmful or dangerous to it. This is achieved through sentences meant to act as a way of deterring the offender from repeating the same crime in the future.