Sentencing Paper

Posted by Winnie Melda on March 8th, 2019

The state and federal objectives of punishment

            The government takes the role of the society in the removal and punishment of criminals with the aim of protecting its citizens. The early forms of punishment involved arresting and locking criminals in jails in which they were tortured and even killed. The punishment was harsh and focused on retribution. At present, the purpose of punishment is to protect the society, rehabilitate offenders, and reduce recidivism. The state and federal correctional institutions use punishment as a form of deterrence for crime and also for incapacitating and rehabilitating offenders. The successful punishments are usually unpleasant and therefore deter criminals and inmates from getting back to unwanted behavior and also deter others from engaging in such activities. As a response to the rising public concern on criminality, policy makers have adopted a tough approach to crime and law breakers that prevent criminal offenders from harming the society. It is only fair for the criminals to pay for their actions and get what they deserve for their actions.

            There are several categories of sentencing used by judges at the state level. They are economic sanctions, probation, intermediate sanctions, short-term confinement, imprisonment, and capital punishment. For punishment, the aim is deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and restitution (Garland, 2012). Deterrence hinders the offender from engaging in future crime through frightening them in public. It can be specific or general where the specific type applies to individuals and the general type applies to the public. Incapacitation prevents crime by the removal of the defendant from the society. Rehabilitation prevents future crime through the alteration of the defendant’s behavior such as the use of educational programs and counseling. Retribution seeks to prevent crime by removing the desire for personal avenges through assault, battery, and homicide against the offender. The societal members are satisfied upon the punishment of a defendant by the government which shows that the criminal procedure is working well (Wang & MA, 2009). Restitution prevents crime by punishing the defendant financially such as paying for harm caused and damages.       

How sentencing affects the state and federal corrections systems overall

            After pleading guilty or being found guilty of a crime, the judge establishes the appropriate sentence for the defendant. It is an act of imposing a criminal sanction with judicial authority. The sentencing of criminals has a significant impact on the state and federal correctional system. As offenders continue to be sentenced for their actions, the state and federal corrections continue being more and more crowded (Seiter, 2011). The increased population of inmates results to financial challenges to the correctional systems and also constraints in the facilities. The state budget is inadequate in providing for the inmates already serving there, and hence an addition to the existing number creates more constraints in the facilities. As the inmates increase, it is also necessary to increase the personnel for working with and guarding them and also for providing other services. Inmates require specialized services such as counseling and health-related interventions, and the demand for more specialists increases as the population of inmates increases (Seiter, 2011).

            The American economy has been under constraint for years that makes it challenging to expand the prison spaces and other correctional facilities as the population increases. The budget is constrained to the essential services and hence addressing the problem is through increased taxes for more funds, reducing the correctional population, and reviewing the services offered which has dire consequences for the correctional system. Tax revenues are limited, and correctional system budgets are on the rise making it challenging to meet the increasing demands fully. Sentencing is considered the appropriate option of dealing with offenders and law breakers, but its costs should also be considered for sustained effectiveness. 

Determinate and indeterminate sentencing: Choice of the most appropriate sentencing model

            Determinate sentencing refers to the fixed jail terms that are specified by statute. It has a defined length and cannot be altered by a parole board (Dharmapala, Garoupa & Shepherd, 2010). For instance, a sentence of one year is determinate because the prisoner has to spend twelve months behind bars less the time off for good behavior and other alternatives to an in-custody duration where applicable. Determinate sentencing is not based on individual characteristics of the defendant, but the sentencing is based on the severity of a crime and the history of the criminal. In contrast, an indeterminate sentence consists of various years hence not fixed. For instance, a judge may sentence an offender to 20 years to life which implies that there is a minimum term, but the release date remains uncertain. The release date is established by a parole board that holds hearings to determine when the convicted person is eligible for parole. Indeterminate sentences are not commonly used when the crime is not serious.

            I think that the indeterminate sentencing model is the most appropriate since it gives a chance for another hearing by the release authority to determine whether individuals are liable for a release or not. The principle of indeterminate sentences explains that the hope of the prison rehabilitating some offenders since different people have a diverse response to punishment (Reitz, 2012). For instance, some people go to prison without a clear understanding of what made them act in a particular manner, but with time they come back to their senses and regret engaging in certain acts. Such people are likely to change their behavior and thus not necessary for them to serve the maximum jail term. Prison officials are fonder of indeterminate sentencing since the prospect of early release gives the offenders an incentive to behave responsibly while incarcerated. I prefer indeterminate sentencing since the goal is that offenders who demonstrate significant progress are likely to be paroled close to the minimum jail term than others who do not. The decision on whether a defendant will be paroled or not depends on the individual crime and mitigating circumstances, criminal history, behavior in prison, and rehabilitation efforts for the offender. The victims may also submit statements upon which a comprehensive evaluation is done before the offender is released back to the community. As such, indeterminate sentencing turns out to enhance fairness in the judicial process since the offender is given a chance to change their behavior and later a parole board assesses their conduct for consideration to an early release after serving the minimum term. However, too much power may be placed on the parole board making it liable for arbitrary and discriminatory results.

            The indeterminate sentencing is preferable than determinate sentencing with the increased population and overcrowding of the correctional facilities. Crime rates are also declining to call for less strict punishments. There is more room for the parole boards’ discretion in various sentencing systems and especially for the drug-related crimes where rehabilitation is considered a reasonable outcome for some offenders.

References

Dharmapala, D., Garoupa, N. M., & Shepherd, J. (2010). Legislatures, judges, and parole boards:             The allocation of discretion under determinate sentencing.

Garland, D. (2012). Punishment and modern society: A study in social theory. University of           Chicago Press.

Reitz, K. (2012). The ‘traditional’indeterminate sentencing model. The Oxford Handbook of         Sentencing and corrections, 270-298.

Seiter, R. (2011) Corrections: An Introduction (3rd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/          Prentice Hall.

Wang, Z. X., & MA, C. (2009). On the Justification of the Retribution Purpose of Punishment     [J]: Journal of Shandong Police College, 4, 004.

Carolyn Morgan is the author of this paper. A senior editor at MeldaResearch.Com in research paper writing services if you need a similar paper you can place your order from Top American Writing Services.