Indeterminate Sentencing Case Study

Ewing had been convicted of both burglary and robbery approximately seven years before the crime that gave rise to this appeal. When he stole the golf clubs, he was still on parole following his release from prison related to those two felony convictions. Following his conviction in this case, the trial judge declined to exercise discretion and convict Ewing of a misdemeanor only, as he was allowed but not required to do under California law. After determining that Ewing should be punished for a felony offense, the trial judge applied California’s “three strikes" law, where a criminal defendant must be sentenced indeterminate life sentence, which in this case was twenty-five years to life. Ewing claimed that the sentence was disproportionate

One of the most famous examples of a sentencing circle in use was the tragic case involving the death of two little girls in 2008. Christopher Pauchay, the father, was intoxicated when he took his two little girls out into the freezing cold barely dressed, and as result both froze to death in the harsh Saskatchewan climate. This case drew a lot of attention towards the community’s growing issues with alcohol abuse. The community, YellowQuill First Nation reserve, requested a sentencing circle be held to deal with these issues in a traditional Aboriginal fashion bringing the victim (in this case the mother), the community (which included elders and others), and the offender together. This request was highly controversial, considering the nature

I do not agree with the sentence, I felt it was too harsh for a minor and

If the offender is found guilty for the charge they will receive the harsher sentence, it is all about being honest within the federal courts, on determining the offenders

The second type is called sentence bargaining. Sentence bargaining involves the prosecutor recommending leniency during the sentencing stage. For example, Craig pleads guilty to a misdemeanor petty theft. The prosecutor would likely recommend no jail time for the defendant. (Spohn & Hemmens, 2012)

The role of the government is to keep everyone and everything in line. The government should have a sentencing reform because with the system we have now it 's just making things worse. Some people are being placed in jail because of their color when there are real criminals that are set free when they really did do something wrong like murdering someone. The government should have a sentencing reform because the system now is just making things worse. To begin with, The government should have a sentencing reform because the system now is just making things worse.

However, the system is not perfect, sometimes we lock up the wrong person or we sentence individuals to harshly. For example, sentence disparity exists in the United States. Sentence disparity is when an individual sentence is unfair and unequal to their crime. A Judges perception of the laws, for instance proves one reason why sentence disparity exists. For example, one judge may view substance abuse as a regular and give them two years’ probation, but another judge could view substance abuse as a habit that does not go away, so he gives a more extreme sentence of two years in prison.

Untie the Judges Hands Imagine you are a fifty-one year old man and you have not eaten in two days, and you resort to theft. Stealing a fifty-cent package of doughnuts from the corner store. You are at your home when suddenly officers burst in and arrest you.

According to the book Corrections The Essentials by Mary K. Stohr and Anthony Walsh, a sentencing disparity occurs when there is a wide variation in sentences received by different offender that may be legitimate or discriminatory. A disparity is legitimate if it is based on crime seriousness and/ or prior record. If it is not then it is considered discriminatory. Sentencing guidelines can help attempts to address these disparities by determining how long a person should go to jail for each crime they committed.

These models are issued based on the type and seriousness of the crime committed (Seiter, 2014). Determinate sentencing means that an offender is being sentenced to a fixed amount of time in the prison system with a specific release date. In contrast, an indeterminate sentence involves an offender being sentenced to prison for a term that includes a minimum sentence without a specific maximum term. After the minimum sentence has been served, the case goes before a parole board for possible early release (Seiter,

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.

Introduction Crime, its punishment, and the legislation that decides the way in which they interact has long been a public policy concern that reaches everyone within a given society. It is the function of the judicial system to distribute punishment equitably and following the law. The four traditional goals of punishment, as defined by Connecticut General Assembly (2001), are: “deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation.” However, how legislature achieves and balances these goals has changed due to the implementation of responses to changing societal influences. Mandatory minimum sentences exemplify this shift.

Sentencing disparity within the American Judicial system is a problem that exists across the nation. According to Merriam Webster’s dictionary, disparity means the markedly distinct in quality or character. Many times, disparity is used in conjunction with discrimination as if the two words mean the same, but they do not. Disparity will include a difference in treatment or outcome but is not based on an opinion, bias or prejudice.

Deterrence is future oriented to prevent crimes. Deterrence has two types general and specific. General is an individual punishment to dissuade others from committing crimes and specific is an individual being punished for additional

2 In recent years, mandatory sentencing laws have been introduced in NSW. Alcohol related violence mandatory sentence was introduced by the NSW government On 21 January 2014. This was introduced because of the amount of one-punch hits while intoxicated. Teens such as Thomas Kelly and Daniel Christie have been killed because intoxicated people for no reason hit them.