Explain The Five Goals Of Criminal Sentencing

I will be discussing the key facts and critical issues presented in various roles/goals within the United States (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2015). The

The Sentencing Reform Act is related to the Complete and thorough Crime Control Act of 1984 were the U.S. federal law increased the consistency in the United States federal sentencing. The Sentencing Reform Act created the United States Sentencing Commission. This act allowed the independent commission into the (law-related) branch of the United States Sentencing Commission. It consists of seven voting members and one nonvoting member. For the benefit of the United States Sentencing Commission, there are rules that establish sentencing policies and practices for the Federal criminal justice system, which secures/makes sure of a meeting of the purposes of sentencing. Judges are also given the power to decide/figure out the realness/respect/truth

In the U.S. criminal justice system, there are two basic sentencing models that the courts use to apply their judgments. These are determinate sentencing and indeterminate sentencing. Determinate sentencing can be referred as a set sentence imposed to an offender this model is based on the famous phrase “Do the crime and will do the time”; however, this model has a unique quality and that is that a parole board can’t overturn the length of the sentence that was imposed. On the other hand indeterminate sentencing can be describe as the length of a sentences that has not being defined yet like the term “25 to life” on this term you can see that the sentencing was not set to an specific time frame, that means that the offenders release date is

During the 1980’s and 90’s, crime rates starting wavering around their highest rates that they have ever been. This raise in crime rates called for action to be put into place in order to compensate. One of the actions put in to place during this time was a change in sentencing law. Previously, judges were given huge discretion when it came to sentencing and incarceration rates had been dropping for a while. This directed the creation of federal sentencing guidelines. Although guidelines were placed on lesser crimes and first time offenses, they were ignore and lead to larges increases in percent of people receiving prison sentences and length of sentences for various offenses. These ignored guidelines were created with the idea that it would

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Frontline writes that the law allocated funds to new prisons, drug education, and treatment. But its main result was to create mandatory minimum sentences. The harsh sentences on crack cocaine use disproportionately affect African-Americans April 22, 2014.

Chapter 11 talked about the goals of of corrections. These goals included Retribution, Incapacitation, Deterrence, and Rehabilitation. Each of these goals contribute to the corrections of juveniles. Incapacitation is when the offender is locked away, not allowing them to be in society minimizing them committing any type of crime. Retribution also now as dessert is when the offender is punished for their criminal acts. Deterrence is done to show and minimize delinquent behavior; showing them the consequences is more powerful then the benefits of committing a crime. Lastly. Rehabilitation seeks to help and change the factors that may allow an offender to join in crimes (Hess, K., Orthmann, C., & Wright, J. 2013).

Punishment refers to a sanction that is enforced when a person commits a crime. In North Carolina, around 1990 punishment and/or rehabilitation under the courts system was entitled structured sentencing. This sentencing included community service, active sentences, or suspended sentences. Rehabilitation on the other hand can be defined as preparing an offender for reintegration back into society after a length of time in prison. Rehabilitation can be programs such as drug courts, education, and/or vocational skills, etc. These programs are thought to help the offender transition back into society and potentially reduce the recidivism rate. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the concept of punishment versus rehabilitation of offenders

In chapter 1, Sykes describe a multitude of justifications for imprisonment. According to Sykes (2007), imprisonment is the appropriate consequences of most serious crimes. For example, if an individual is robbing and killing people in a community, the appropriate response to such violent crime is to place that individual in prison. In The Society of Captives book, many prisoners alluded to the fact that if one if one is committing crime he or she should be ready to endure the hardship of imprisonment. Imprisonment is justified on these three grounds, deterrence, punishment and reform. The punishment aspect of imprisonment refers to an individual that violated societal laws and must suffer as a result. Sykes (2007) asserted that imprisonment

The goal of the United States Criminal Justice System is to deliver justice for all. Justice meaning to convict and punish those who are guilty while protecting those who are innocent. On many occasions, the Criminal Justice System has failed to reach this goal by doing the opposite of its purpose and serving injustice. The justice system fails when it allows false arrests, malicious prosecutions and denial of a speedy trial to innocent people. Injustice is an important issue in the United States because it negatively affects the lives of those involved. The effect of a failed justice system causes innocent people to feel the “heartache of having missed so much of life” after serving time for a crime they did not commit (Baca 567). They become

Of the four goals of prison, I believe that deterrence is the best current approach to correction best accomplishes. Deterrence, a principle in which punishment should prevent the criminal from reoffending. It also assumes that potential criminals would weigh the costs of punishment versus the benefits of the crime act.

Punishing individuals for wrongdoing is an ethical issue that is still current in modern day society. It can be argued that we need punishment for various different reasons. Without punishment, crimes would not be illegal and it would be hard to differ between what is right and what is morally wrong. Punishment highlights the need to focus on the consequences of our actions and show us what could happen if we go against the law. Punishment has the ability to make criminals better individuals through deterrence and rehabilitation. It also allows people to have better social cohesion and benefits society as a whole. Many philosophers, including Hobbes and Mill share these views.

Along with the War on Drugs, the changes in sentencing policies contributed to higher levels of incarceration at both the state and federal levels. Mandatory minimum sentences were established as the response to complaints from politicians and the public that offenders weren’t serving long enough terms for their convictions. These sentences stipulate a minimum period of incarceration that people convicted of selected crimes must serve (p.80). Mandatory minimum sentences apply primarily to drug offenses, murder, aggravated rape, felonies involving firearms, and felonies committed by people who have previous felony convictions (4). An example of a mandatory sentencing is the three-strikes laws. Under these laws, the judge is required to sentence offenders to long prison terms if they have three felony convictions, sometimes they are sentenced to life without parole. However, research shows that mandatory minimum sentences and three strikes laws have little or no effect on reducing crime rates. But there is substantial evidence that they made sentences much longer, prison populations much larger, and incarceration rates much higher (4). For example, in

During the 70s, the public was upset that some violent offenders were given the opportunity to be released from prison and commit further crimes. The fear over increasing crime rates and the failure to reform offenders led to the federal government to pass the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. In 1984, the U.S. Congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. The Sentencing Reform Act was included in the initial Crime Control Act. The sentencing reform made changes to federal sentencing and parole policies by replacing unspecified sentences with defined terms of imprisonment. Early releases through parole were abolished and replaced with supervised release. The determinate sentencing structure of the sentencing guidelines rejects the rehabilitative model’s notion that the rehabilitative capacity of offenders should determine sentence lengths. (Maulhausen, 2010) This change from reform to punitive required offenders to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence with the possibility of early release based on good behavior for the remaining 15 percent of the sentence. During the time of rehabilitation, offenders only served, on average, 58 percent of their prison sentences. (Maulhausen, 2010) Since the United State is using a get tough on crime approach, punishment is now a prisons main function. As a result, the punitive model has caused an explosion in prison

Today our justice system has a multitude of options when dealing with those who are convicted of offenses. However, many argue that retributive justice is the only real justice there is. This is mainly because its advantage is that it gives criminals the appropriate punishment that they deserve. The goals of this approach are clear and direct. In his book The Little Book of Restorative Justice, Zehr Howard (2002), illustrates that the central focus of retributive justice is offenders getting what they deserve (p. 30). This reflection paper will first address the advantages of using retributive justice approach in three court-cases. Second, it will discuss the disadvantages of using retributive justice approaches by analyzing the three court-cases listed above. Third, it will elaborate on ways that the system could have used restorative justice processes in the cases, as well as present potential outcomes that could have been reached if restoration justice was taken into consideration.

The theories of Restorative Justice and Utilitarianism seem to have much in common. Both aim to reach a virtuous response to crime, and therefore they are positive and forward looking. Utilitarians argue that punishing offenders crimes are likely to be reduced. Jeremy Bentham identified two objectives for punishment that share the same idea. Specific deterrence and general deterrence purpose are to increase the "price" for a criminal act in order to discourage potential offenders from choosing to commit crimes.