Sentencing_Paper

1 Sentencing Paper Kim Allen CJS/200 September 2, 2012 Brenda Barney 2 Sentencing Paper There are four philosophical reasons for sentencing criminals we will discuss the traditional and enlightened views. The first is “retribution which is the earliest known rationale for punishment” which followed the Old Testament of an “eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or the act of taking revenge on a criminal perpetrator.” This form of punishment was usually swift and severe and could be executed on the spot without benefit of a trial for the accused. Even today, “retribution corresponds to the just desserts model of sentencing which posits that the criminal offender deserve the punishment they receive at the hands of the law and the punishments should be appropriate to the type and severity of the crime committed.” (Schaller, 2011, pg. 373) Next is incapacitation where the criminal is locked up away from society in order to keep citizens safe and to keep the criminal from committing more crimes. Also used in ancient times where criminals may be subjected to “mutilation and amputation” to keep them from reoffending. Incapacitation is still used today where the convicted is sentenced to jail or prison for a certain amount of time where the focus in on locking up the offender and not retribution. The third form of punishment is “deterrence uses the example or threat of punishment to convince people that criminal activity is not worthwhile, the goal is crime prevention. The two specifics examples of deterrence are (1) specific deterrence seek to reduce the likelihood of recidivism (repeat offenses) by convicted offenders, (2) while general deterrence strives to 3 influence the future behavior of people who have not yet been arrested and who may be tempted to turn to crime.” According to Tufts University Professor Hugo Adam Bedau, retribution is oriented toward the past; deterrence is a strategy is for the future.” The last philosophical reason is rehabilitation which looks to make fundamental changes in offenders and their behavior with education and psychological treatment. Rehabilitation seeks to make positive and constructive changes and to return offenders back into society as productive citizens. This is a noble cause that requires time, resources, and a budget to accomplish which taxpayers may be reluctant to finance. During the “1970s, the rehabilitation goal in sentencing fell victim to the “nothing-works doctrine” based on studies of recidivism rates consistently showed that rehabilitation was more of an ideal than reality.” In defense of this sentencing goal, there is emerging evidence does suggest that some treatment programs are effective. There are six forms of punishment, starting with intensive supervision which includes probation, parole, or house arrest. Probation or parole happens after a person is released from jail or prison and is still held accountable to the correctional system for a period of time. The option house arrest is generally used for low-level crime and is less expensive than holding someone in a institution. Next is incarceration which is the imprisonment of individuals who have been convicted of a crime and is sentenced to do time. 4 The third form of punishment is rehabilitation which also includes drug rehab and counseling this has gained favor from the acknowledgement that drug addiction which causes much crime can on dealt with treatment programs in conjunction with the court system. Next is restitution and fines and is the monetary form of punishment handed out by the courts. Fifth on the list are alternative punishments or sanctions “which include court-ordered community service, home detention, day reporting, drug treatment, psychological counseling, victim-offender programming, or intensive supervision.” The last and permanent punishment is capital punishment where the crime is so horrendous that the only punishment that fits is death which is carried out by the state after the mandatory appeals process has taken place. Sentencing guidelines have changed over the years while indeterminate sentencing still exists in some states it has been criticized for inequality when sentencing offenders. Critics called for recognition of three sentencing principals: proportionally, equity, and social debt. To address these concerns “beginning in the 1970s, a number of states addressed these concerns by developing a different model of sentencing, known as structured sentencing.” A form of structured sentencing is called determinate sentencing where the convicted has a fixed sentence with the ability to reduce time by good behavior. During the 1980s, some states developed voluntary/advisory sentence guidelines which recommend policies not required by law. 5 Presumptive sentencing also became common during the 1980s, which says that (1) the appropriate sentence to be given that falls within the guidelines “set by a sentencing commission, (2) judges are expected to sentence within the guidelines,” and (3) if a judge does deviate from the guidelines there must be a review. Guideline jurisdiction also deals with aggravating circumstances which calls for a tougher sentence or mitigating circumstances which dictates a lesser sentence, depending on the severity of the crime. As studies are done to determine the effectiveness of present methods changes will continue in hopes of finding and implementing progress and fairness into an already complex and emotional issue, Recommendations to modify the sentencing process to reduce recidivism rates would be to increase resources and budgets to implement more rehabilitation programs and move incrementally toward reducing the rate especially with the juvenile offender where the chance for fundamental change is the greatest. The second would be to implement the three strikes; you’re out, sentencing for adult offenders who reoffend, while this is not a constructive idea to reduce recidivism, but if you do not let out those offenders who commit the majority crimes then you do not have to worry about them reoffending. I do believe that there will always be a certain percentage of the population that cannot be rehabilitated back into a productive citizen. 6 Reference Schmalleger, F. (2011). Criminal justice today: An introductory text for the twenty-first century (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson Prentice Hall.