What are the Five Rationales of Sentencing and which one do you believe is most appropriate for the US and why?
What are the Five Rationales of Sentencing and which one do you believe is most appropriate for the US and why? Write your answer 150-200 words.
Useful information the teacher provided: Criminal Justice System: Sentencing and Corrections
Sentencing policies have changed the Criminal Justice System immensely over the last two and one half decades. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2006), there are currently 1.5 million prisoners in the United States, this is a stark increase from the early 1980s when there were less than 400,000 prisoners. The growth in prisoners was not proportionate to the growth in population. Mandatory sentencing policies such as Truth in Sentencing, “Three Strikes”, and an increase in incarcerating narcotics-related offenders are the primary reasons. Our society has become more punitive, incarcerating as many offenders as possible for the longest period of time possible.
The goals of criminal sentencing include retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration. Retribution corresponds to the just deserts model of sentencing, which holds that offenders are responsible for their crimes. Incapacitation seeks to protect innocent members of society from offenders who might harm them if not prevented from doing so. The goal of deterrence is to prevent future criminal activity through the example or threat of punishment. Rehabilitation seeks to bring about fundamental changes in offenders and their behavior to reduce the likelihood of future criminality. Restoration seeks to address the damage done by crime by making the victim and the community “whole again.” The indeterminate sentencing model is characterized primarily by vast judicial choice. It builds on the belief that convicted offenders are more likely to participate in their own rehabilitation if such participation will reduce the amount of time that they have to spend in prison. Structured sentencing is largely a child of the just deserts philosophy. It grew out of concerns with proportionality, equity, and social debt – all of which this chapter discusses. A number of different types of structured sentencing models have been created, including determinate sentencing, which requires that a convicted offender be sentenced to a fixed term that may be reduced by good time or gain time, and a voluntary/advisory sentencing model under which guidelines consist of recommended sentencing policies that are not required by law, and are usually based on past sentencing practices, and are meant to serve as guides to judges. Mandatory sentencing, another form of structured sentencing, mandates clearly enumerated punishments for specific offenses or for habitual offenders convicted of a series of crimes. The applicability of structured sentencing guidelines has been called into question by recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Alternative sanctions include the use of court-ordered community service, home detention, day-reporting, drug treatment, psychological counseling, victim-offender mediation, and intensive supervision in lieu of other, more traditional sanctions, such as imprisonment and fines. A number of questions have been raised about alternative sentences, including questions about their impact on public safety, the cost-effectiveness of such sanctions, and the long-term effects of community sanctions on people assigned to alternative programs. Probation and parole officers routinely conduct background investigations to provide information that judges may use in deciding on the appropriate kind or length of sentence for convicted offenders. Historically, criminal courts have often allowed victims to testify at trial but have otherwise downplayed the experience of victimization and the suffering it causes. A new interest in the rights experience of victims, beginning in the 1970s in this country, has led to greater legal recognition of victims’ rights, including a right to allocution (the right to be heard during criminal proceedings). Many states have passed victims’ rights amendments to their constitutions, although a federal victims’ rights amendment has yet to be enacted. The Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004 established statutory rights for victims of federal crimes and gives them the necessary legal authority to assert those rights in federal court. The four traditional sentencing options identified in this chapter are fines, probation, imprisonment, and—in cases of especially horrific offenses—death. The appropriateness of each sentencing option for various kinds of crimes was discussed, and the pros and cons of each were examined. Arguments for capital punishment identified in this chapter include revenge, just deserts, and the protection of society. The revenge argument builds upon the need for personal and communal closure. The just deserts argument makes the straightforward claim that some people deserve to die for what they have done. Societal protection is couched in terms of deterrence, since those who are executed cannot commit future crimes, and execution serves as an example for other would be wrong-doers. Arguments against capital punishment include findings that a death sentence has been imposed on innocent people, that the death penalty has not been found to be an effective deterrent, that it is often arbitrarily imposed, that it tends to discriminate against powerless groups and individuals, and that it is very expensive because of the numerous court appeals involved, and that the state should recognize the sanctity of human life.
Comments
Post a Comment