Whether it is retaliatory or treatment based, it is generally agreed that the criminal must be punished. The way that society punishes criminal behaviour seems to be a barometer of culture. Punishment signifies a society's values, morality, sensibilities and reasoning. Traditionally, retaliatory methods of punishment, or punishments that use revenge, were widespread throughout the world. This form of a penalty included anything from corporal and capital punishment, to incarceration and banishment.
The Act contains a Charter of Victim’s Rights which requires, among a number of things, respect for a victim’s dignity, victim’s compensation, protection from the accused, protection of identity and assistance during the criminal process. The Charter also introduces victim impact statements, which is allows the victim an opportunity to participate in the process by letting the court know how the crime has affected them. The judge has a discretion to hear and to take into account a victim impact statement in determining the sentence. Victim impact statements are only permitted for serious offences and are presented after the offender is found guilty, before the sentence is passed. In the case of McCartney v R (2009) A male found guilty of sexual assault was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, after the aggravating factors were considered, including the victim impact statement, it was concluded by the judge that the victim’s “life and studies have been totally disrupted by the event and suffered considerable distress.” The victim impact statement in this case influenced the sentence and the judge was able to effectively use his discretion to determine the best sentence for both the offender and the victim, by taking into account both the mitigating and aggravating factors.
This sentencing goal is critical due to the fact that different state has different sentencing laws. These are issues the American society deals with when a court sanctioned a cruel and unreasonable punishment. Structured Sentencing The public opinion of social justice wanted a different sentencing model that will determine fair justice to convicted criminals. Through criticism of its methods, the
In a trial you deal with the facts of the case. The victim-impact statement will add the human element relevant to the crime. It will let me focus on the monetary cost of the crime. I will consider the suffering, social, physical, and psychological damage the victim has incurred. If the financial cost was not revealed in the trial, I will also have that information.
Sentencing Essay a) Describe the sentences available for adult offenders (18 marks) The courts have several different sentences they can give an adult offender; an overview of the sentences can put them into four main categories: custodial sentences, fines, discharges and community sentences. The courts can also give specific sentences such as compensation orders, and disqualification from driving or banning from driving for motoring offences. The first and most popular sentences imposed by the courts are custodial sentences. This is were the offender is incarcerated for a length of time depending on the offence they committed. For example, the offence of murder carries a mandatory life sentence, which is where the offender must be imprisoned for a minimum length of time, specified by the judge.
These guidelines are given precedence over one another when the judiciary determines an appropriate sanction depending on the circumstances surrounding the offence. Incarceration is effective when the principles of general deterrence, denunciation and incapacitation are given primary consideration. However, when the principles of rehabilitation, reparations, and instilling a sense of responsibility in the offender are most important, restorative justice is a more effective alternative to incarceration. Therefore this paper will evaluate both incarceration and restorative justice within the framework of current sentencing purposes and principles and identify general circumstances wherein each sanction is most effective. Origin of Current Sentencing Purposes and Principles The purposes and principles of sentencing the judiciary uses today are relatively new additions to Canadian law.
If a regular citizen committed the crime they would receive time in jail for whatever crime in which was committed. Justice concerns the proper ordering of things and persons within a society (Dictionary.com, 2009). The concept justice has been subject to legal, theological, and philosophical reflection and debate all through the history of time (Dictionary.com). Justice is to do what is right and punish the ones who have done wrong. Justice is to maintain order and to punish the criminals in which have committed the crime.
Judges also deal with the issue of bail once established that there is enough evidence to hold a criminal trial against the defendant during the preliminary hearing. Judges decide on whether to grant bail, and if so at what amount and on what conditions. If any of the conditions are broken by the defendant, the judge can also revoke bail and issue a warrant for his or her arrest. Once the criminal or civil trial has begun, the judge presides over the courtroom (Meyer & Grant, 2003). When the jury reaches a verdict of guilty, the judge is responsible for following established legal guidelines during sentencing.
The philosophy of retribution is that of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. In other words, that to cause a crime violates the social contract and a criminal must pay his or her debt to society by being punished. This principle suggests that a crime against one individual is a crime against all citizens. According to Lawlink, retribution is the theory that the guilty should endure the punishment which they entirely deserve. Denunciation then again, involves the imposition of a sentence which is in fact severe with regards to make a statement, which the crime in question is not to be tolerated by the community (2003).