IMPACT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES Sentencing whether mandatory or voluntary has guidelines specific to the state. For those with only a passing familiarity with the criminal justice system, it appears that guidelines are unified and equitable across the United States. “The adoption of sentencing guidelines in a number of states has motivated a substantial body of research on the relationship between these policies and state-level sanctions” (Crotty, 2004). There has been question of recidivism of offenders and if it is due to the leniency in sentencing in reference to certain crimes. “In the latter part of the 20th century, amid allegations of unwarranted sentence disparity, many states searched for a commonsense alternative to indeterminate sentencing.
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.
These include that it’s not available in all areas, not available to serious offence, such as rape and murder and it’s also not available to previous custodial sentences servers. Whilst Forum Sentencing is available for European Australians, Circle Sentencing is set up for Indigenous Australians. Circle Sentencing is very similar to Forum Sentencing, except it is for Adult Aboriginal offenders are sentenced by their community. Circle sentencing is also based on Aboriginal Customary Law and more traditional indigenous forms of dispute resolution, it also has the full sentencing powers that a court does. A clear example for Circle Sentencing is shown in the article “Sentencing innovation breaking vicious circle of jail terms” (SMH 15/5/03) where it states “it has been so successful that the NSW Attorney-General, Bob Debus, has said circle sentencing will start in Dubbo next month.
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.
“Should the United States continue to use capital punishment?” I believe that the United States should continue to use capital punishment. Although the administering of current procedures may be severely flawed, I still think it is the best deterrent available for serious and heinous crimes against society. The purpose of the assigned article, as well as the NPR interview, was to inform the reader and listener as to the current problems inherent in today’s execution procedures. None of problems expressed are those which couldn’t be addressed by the individual states as well as the prison system as a whole. The basic theme for both articles appears to be the lack of humane procedures and trained medical personnel on hand for the execution.
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.
Two Models/Criminal Process Ashley Lawrence CJA/364 June 8,2013 Mathew Taylor Two Models/Criminal Process Two models within the criminal justice system play very important roles. One may say that within the political world the two models may even conflict with each other. Crime control model may be more liberal focusing on society and crime, which as for due process is to focus more on a fair opportunity for the one that is accused and many see it as conservative. The 4th, 5th, 6th, and fourteenth amendment all play important roles within the due process model, and the criminal justice system, to make sure everyone is given a fare trial. Due process occurs when fare treatment is given throughout the judicial system.
Ryan Silva Criminal Procedures Wed 6:30-9:35 pm Differences between Due Process and Crime Control Due Process focuses more on the rights of individuals whether it be the private citizen or an alleged suspect being tried for a crime, while maximizing the government efforts to stop or prevent crime. The trick is how successfully execute both without sacrificing one for the other, One could argue that this is the liberal perspective of the crime prevention module. Supporters of this perspective want a defendant to properly go through the entire justice system from beginning to end without, including exhausting the number of appeals allowed calling this the “obstacle course” (Worral p.14). Crime Control on other hand focuses more on the prevention of crime at any cost. Could be considered the conservative approach to the crime prevention module.
The use of mandatory sentencing practices in the Northern Territory from 1997 to 2001, and the application of similar laws in Western Australia, led to considerable public controversy and outcry. These laws, known colloquially as ‘three strikes laws’, may have hindered the effectiveness of discretionary sentencing, the application of mitigating circumstances, and the prison system in achieving justice, through the application of inappropriate penalties which have led to effects more adverse than would exist in a just situation. In a legal sense, mandatory sentencing is the procedure whereby judicial discretion regarding certain crimes and in certain cases is restricted by law. In an Australian context, it has been taken to refer to the procedures applied in the Northern Territory, under the governments of Shane Stone and Denis Burke, whereby mandatory sentences from one month to one year for the third offence relating to property and theft were introduced. These matters gained national attention after the death in custody of Johnno [sic] Warramarrba in February 2001, who committed
There are many laws that come into play with the end result being less crime. They are intended to make punishments harsher for offenders with the hopes that the offender will not repeat crimes. The Habitual Felon Act was developed in order to increase sentencing time for the repeat offenders. This was considered to be a ""tough on crime" legislation that was adopted by the North Carolina General Assemble in the early 1990s" (Young). The law was also adapted in order to get more violent individuals off of the street, instead it filled the prisons with nonviolent, low priority felons.