As a result, it will be possible to sentence the offender in respect to his crime and taking into consideration his personality. In such a way, it would be possible to use sentencing more effectively since the proper use of the presentence investigation report could make it possible to find an individual approach to each offender and his/her particular case. Moreover, the knowledge of the offender’s background, inclinations, causes of crime, etc. would help judges better understand the extent to which the offender is guilty and select the punishment that could perfectly match his personality. Practically, it means that some offenders may need strict punishment while others may need les strict sentence, instead, the participation in some probation program may be even more effective to them than any term in jail, for instance.
The Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) regulates what are termed controlled drugs. It divides drugs into three classes as follows: (Illegal drugs) Class A: These include, cocaine and crack (a form of cocaine), ecstasy, heroin, LSD, methadone, methamphetamine (crystal meth), magic mushrooms containing ester of psilocin and any Class B drug which is injected. Class B: These include amphetamine (not methamphetamine), barbiturates, codeine, ketamine and cannabis. All cathinone derivatives, including mephedrone, methylone, methedrone and MDPV were brought under control as Class B substances in 2010. Class C: These include anabolic steroids, minor tranquillisers, GBL and GHB, and khat.
It may also be used for sentencing offenders that are repeat offenders. The mandatory minimum sentence set lists of sentences for judges to refer to while passing judgment (Mackenzie, D.
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
Crime maybe controlled by fear of punishment 4. Punishment that is severe, certain, and swift will stop crime They believed in fast punishment instead of long trials. One of the major parts of criminal punishment reform was for fair and equal treatment of accused offenders. Judges could punish criminals however they wanted to no matter how severe the crime. Mr. Beccaria and other members of the Classical School fought for punishment to be set by legislative instead of judges having all of the authority for punishment.
Assess the role discretion plays in the sentencing and punishment of offenders. Sentencing and punishment has actively involved the discretion of judges and magistrates in affecting the decision of the sentencing. Discretion involves the power of Judges and magistrates to determine the most appropriate sentence for a case. Allowing judicial officers to decide sentences on a case by case basis and thus permitting them to take into account the various circumstances. Many factors influence the role discretion plays or alternatively doesn’t play in the sentencing and punishment of offenders.
In theory, the use of these alternative methods of incarceration allow the convicted criminal [offender] to be humanely reintegrated into society more effectively than traditional methods. This theory is based on the criminal's possibility of productive membership in society, and the belief of the individuality, or uniqueness of criminals derived from the field of criminology. It also encompasses the preconditions of sentencing, and principles similar to that of the justification of incarceration. Pre-modern criminal discipline constituted mostly of exile, and a variety of corporal and capital punishments. The predominant principle was "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" (Dodge 3).
He is very experienced in criminal law and is against mandatory sentencing. This journal presents information that the mandatory sentencing policy in the U.S. is a failure. It argues that Legislators thought that they could “get tough on crime,” especially drug crime. I feel this source gives educated reasons as to why drug policy needs to be changed. It also backs up my other sources with the same research results; by removing the sentencing discretion of judges, and replacing it with mandatory jail sentences, we are sending more offenders to prison instead of programs designed to rehabilitate.
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.
Another premiss is “Severe laws against marijuana do not discourage use of marijuana, but rather breed this contempt not only for drug laws but for laws in general.” This ties in with the first premiss, but can stand alone as its’ own as well. The conclusion would be “Severe laws against marijuana are more dangerous to society than the activity that they are designed to prevent.” This is a conclusion that explains its two premisses and makes an argument against the laws in which are enforced to prevent the use of marijuana. Also, in this case for this particular argument there are no extra superfluous premises. This is mainly because almost all the argument is used for the conclusion and