Many people have their own opinion about sentencing reform. Some people think that it should be change while others think that it should stay how it is. In my opinion i think that they should not change it. To start with, i think that the sentencing reform should stay the same because there 's too many crimes going on in this world. According to source 1 it states, “there is no question that crime rates will increase if sentencing reform provides large numbers of criminals with early release from prison and requires shorter sentences when they re-offend.” This is explaining how if the sentencing reforms are changed there will be more crimes and many criminals.
To go into detail, I believe it is important that the federal government still have the ability to preform executions when it deems them necessary. The death penalty should only be abolished for cases involving murderers, or other crimes against civilians which would have perviously considered execution. Terrorism, crimes against the government, and other federal crimes should still have the ability to impose the death penalty on convicted terrorists and similar individuals. There are many reasons that the death penalty should be changed from todays standards. There are situations which I would deem it necessary, and situations in which I believe it to be excessive and unnecessary to the bettering of todays society.
With the failure of the rehabilitation programs, the United States had to turn to the retribution model of punishment. Also at the turn of the decade into the 80’s, The War on Drugs kick started the epidemic of prison overcrowding, and launched America into a downward plunge of economic and political turmoil. The mandatory minimum sentencing policy that was in place did not help the situation either, giving long incarceration sentences to prisoners who didn’t deserve it. Criminals were given the minimum sentences for crimes, and judges carried them out precisely. Race and poverty were also side contributors that contributed to the bigger picture of the issue.
Foucault also posited that modern prisons evolved to sequester torture practices from public view. Bentham and Foucault speculated that by embedding punishment systems in prison architecture and institutions rather than meting out punishment openly through public execution or floggings, the State was able to greatly reduce the likelihood of adverse public reaction to the punishment of criminals (Hirst,
Prisoners shouldn 't be allowed to be released from prison after fifteen years because they deserve death penalty. There are some statistics that demonstrates that they are going to continue performing felonies. Also there are studios that demonstrates that letting free a prisoner affect his family and the family of the victim. The death penalty should be applied on those cases because it is less expensive for the government and it would keep the country more safe. Prisoner 's sentences for first degree murder shouldn 't be eligible for parole hearing after fifteen years in jail because there is a probability that they continue to commit felonies, and because the seriousness of the crime it is necessary apply the death penalty.
Determinate sentencing can deter crime since individuals are encouraged to weigh the consequences of their actions before carrying them out. If individuals were aware that a drug offence could carry a 10 year sentence if found guilty, it may persuade people who are deciding whether to commit this crime, to follow the law instead of break it (Determinate Sentencing Pros and Cons 2014). Thus, it can be inferred that the harsher the sentence, the more likely someone may decide to obey the law in avoiding the legal consequences of that criminal action (Determinate Sentencing Pros and Cons 2014). In their book Deterrence, Zimring and Hawkins explain that establishing lengthy imprisonment in sentencing laws warns the public that serious crimes will not be tolerated (Wicharaya 1995, p. 7). This reinforces and builds respect for law
The reasoning behind the drop is that we are sending juveniles to residential treatment over incarceration, which is more in line with the goal of rehabilitation over punishment. Michael Orlando is the court director for Fairfield County Juvenile Court, he reported that we are now treating juvenile offenders in a case management approach, employing social workers, as opposed to the punishment model, this is different than how we treat adults. He also reported that juveniles only get sent to a detention center if they are a harm to themselves or others. I think today we have a better understanding of mental health and how incarceration is not the answer we still have a long way to go and more to discover, therefore research is critical. It is also very important that social workers, teachers, law enforcement, the courts, corrections etc.
When the American prison system began, it was believed that rehabilitation, the act of restoring one’s character, could be beneficial for criminals to start over. According to Tom Wicker, “The system…began as a reform impulse, the idea that if offenders were isolated, shielded from the public mockery that had accompanied hangings and the stocks, given time to repent, and worked hard, they could be turned away from crime and transformed into useful citizens” (xii). Criminals could become better citizens and have a positive outlook for a future if they worked hard and were secluded from the outside world. Although this idea seems more humane, it did not last long in the prison system because many people believed that any crime committed deserved
Community corrections were introduced in the 1970’s and provide sanction programs designed to decrease on jail or prison incarceration rates. It is a range of alternative punishments for nonviolent offenders. This program was referred to as front end sentencing because they allowed judges to sentence offenders to a community based punishment rather than jail or prison. Community corrections are starting to affect our prisons and jail houses in many ways. One of the ways community corrections affects the prison population is by decreasing overcrowding and provides less expensive alternatives to prisons and jails.
Not taking peoples DNA is a major issue due to the fact that many people are wrongly convicted and are put into prison for a crime they did not commit. Keeping the DNA from inmates who did a crime should be kept because if they commit another crime the police can go back to their DNA and see if it matches the DNA from the crime. DNA Evidence is such a huge impact when it