Sentencing Is Unjust

The question is, who actually determines what punishment is deserved and what isn’t? I assure that there is some way how to determine how much punishment is deserved and that goes into further detail, but instead of figuring out what punishment individuals should serve for their crimes committed, they could be rehabilitating criminals who need their help, which would be a reductivist point of view. Although retributivists believe people should be punished for the crimes they have committed, the concept named ‘just deserts’ was introduced to represent the idea of a “fair and appropriate punishment related to the severity of the crime that was committed” which comes under the harsher side of punishment. It also argues that the most severe offence committed, the equal amount of punishment will be taken upon that criminal. This type of punishment is seen as “morally justified” and if the harm it prevents to the criminal is greater than the harm inflicted upon the victim it is seen as “rational, fair and just”. Similarly, if you were to deter individuals from committing future crimes, it demonstrates to the offender that breaking the law results in more pain rather than

Out of the countless systems that America has, the criminal justice system has the most complication. Many judges, lawyers, and even prisoners have views on how to improve the criminal justice system but, to be able to pin point the problems of the criminal justice system you must discern what the causes are. Most would say that the problem with the prison system is the overcrowding. A few says the sentencing causes chaos in the criminal justice system. I believe that one or the main problem with the criminal justice system is the sentencing. Many of the prisoners are incarnated for petty drug charges or unfair sentencing as a consequence the prisons is overpopulated and causes confusion. The Three Strikes and you’re out policy will have the

The main purpose for our criminal justice system should be to stop future crime. General deterrence would be a good way to set an example to communities who disobey the law. Allowing bystanders to see the punishments of crime will instill fear into them, causing them not to repeat the crime they witness. Specific deterrence allows for criminals to still be in society, but every time they think about doing something illegal they will have a negative feeling. These method focusses on educative function allowing people to learn from their mistakes and preventing further complications. If the government main goal was deterrence, then there would be less crime and fewer people in prisons. This would help with taxes and improve communities. Additionally,

The five goals of contemporary criminal sentencing is retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and restoration. The goal of retribution is to take revenge on a criminal. The goal of incapacitation is to imprison or other means to reduce the likelihood that an offender will commit future offenses. The goal of deterrence is to inhibit criminal behavior through the fear of punishment. The goal of rehabilitation is to reform a criminal. Restoration’s goal is to sentence the criminal, so the victim feels whole again.

Death Penalty is a very ominous punishment to discuss. It is probably the most controversial and feared form of punishment in the United States. Many are unaware, but 31 of the 52 states have the Death penalty passes as an acceptable punishment. In the following essay, I will agree and support Stephen Nathanson's statement that "Equality retributivism cannot justify the death penalty." In the reading, "An Eye for an Eye?", Nathanson gives objections to why equality retributivism is morally acceptable for the death penalty to be legal. The first objection is that the death penalty does not "provide a measure of moral desert" (Nathanson). For the second, Nathanson states "it does not provide an adequate criterion for determining appropriate levels of punishment." The main objection is an "eye for an eye", or Lex talionis, and I believe it fails to support equality retributivism and creates punishments that are morally unacceptable. There is no way that

Sentencing methods and rationales are continually highly contested in the Criminal Justice system. Monetary penalties are particularly pivotal in these debates. According to Walsh, research from all corners of the world continually demonstrates that the poorest in society are more likely to be subject to the Criminal Justice System. This evidence Walsh argues, ‘cannot be ignored’, when considering which sentencing options should be used. The fine is the most commonly used penal sanction in most Western Penal systems. Fines are a historic type of monetary penalty which have remained incredibly popular. Outside of the United States, fines make up about 70 % of all punishments in the lower courts. The fine can be seen as a modest penalty, and appropriate, in my opinion, only if the offence was minor. Bentham sees monetary penalties as ‘ideal’. This I argue is incorrect. Monetary penalties have so many disadvantages that they should not be used to a greater extent in the criminal justice system. Thus some have gone as far to argue that they should be completely abolished. However Burch has said that this would not be possible so reform should be favoured instead. I will argue that updating their current use is essential in order to make the current system of fines more effective and more restricted. I will continue to discuss why fines are not effective, from their rational, to their effect on the offender to the way that they are set in practice. I will conclude

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.

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. Within the United States there are several types of disparity that exist within sentencing and these inconsistencies can vary from state to state, judge to judge, and from individual from individual.

The Various roles/goals of Sentencing within the United States. In a narrative format, discuss the key facts and critical issues presented.

Within this framework, individuals are considered to make rational choices, equally capable of reason and therefore shall be deemed responsible for their actions and deterred through potential threat. Today, classical thinking is evident in sentencing via the “just deserts” approach. This approach to sentencing assures that someone who is found guilty of a crime must be punished for the crime. The just deserts approach rejects individual discretion and rehabilitation – insisting “justice must be

In 2010, the US Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) which reduced the sentencing difference between offenses for crack and powder cocaine. Many people in law enforcement believed that there is more violence associated with a crack cocaine crime, rather than a powder cocaine offense. Due to the increasing amount of reports and cases of aggressive offenses, Urban Leaders in America allowed the sentences of the crime to be extended because of the violence in a drug trafficking offense. In the article, “Data Show Racial Disparity in Crack Sentencing” by Danielle Kurtzleben, states that, “The figures for the 6,020 powder cocaine cases are far less skewed: 17 percent of these offenders were white, 28 percent were black, and 53 percent were

1. The difference between specific and general deterrence is the focus population. Specific deterrence focuses on deterring convicted offenders from repeating offenses. General deterrence focuses on deterring people who have not been arrested away from crime.

You brought up a subject that does not get enough attention as it deserves- the affect of incarceration on families. There is always lots of discussion and debate in the media about crime, victims of crime, police, and prisons. I do not think we hear nearly enough about the detrimental affect that incarceration has on families and communities. These effects can be great and long-lasting. Like you mentioned, one negative result is the loss of income from a missing, incarcerated parent. This must, in many cases, have a large, negative affect on families and their economic stability. It is difficult to be a single parent and if a parent is suddenly forced in this position when the other parent gets incarcerated, the family may have to move or drastically change their lifestyle to compensate for the lower income. This loss of income can be extremely damaging to

There is a worldwide trend in the use of penal imprisonment for serious offenses as capital punishment has been renounced by an increasing number of countries. Harsh punishments include capital punishment, life imprisonment and long-term incarceration. These forms of punishments are usually used against serious crimes that are seen as unethical, such as murder, assault and robbery. Many people believe that harsher punishments are more effective as they deter would-be criminals and ensure justice is served. Opposition towards harsh punishments have argued that harsher punishments does not necessarily increase effectiveness because they do not have a deterrent effect, do not decrease recidivism rates and do not provide rehabilitation. In addition,