Sentencing

Federal and State Sentencing

Introduction to Corrections University of Phoenix March 12, 2012

How often have we heard someone say He got a raw deal he needs help, not punishment or when he or she gets out, they will have learned his or her lesson. Sentences are devised and implemented by the judge to cure societys sentiments and

Sentencing

fears about criminal behavior. This narrative will analyze the principal objectives of punishment within the United States corrections system. Describe the state and federal objectives of punishment and explain how sentencing impact state and federal corrections systems. The objectives of criminal sentencing today can be grouped into distinct areas: deterrence, incapacitation, and reformation or rehabilitation. Research and the study of crime patterns in the criminal justice system can plan, and construct programs to reduce crimes. To deter crime, punishment must be sufficient, strict, cure and swift and outweigh any benefit of the law violated. According to Foster (2006), deterrence was to be achieved through certainty of imprisonment, was the discouraging effect that punishment has on those who may contemplate committing a crime. (p. 67) The criminal justice system wants society to restrain from crime because of the fear of severe punishment. Crime does not pay. The goal of deterrence is to maintain a balance between fear and justice. The policy of keeping dangerous criminals in confinement to eliminate the risk of repeating the crime is known as incapacitation. This ideal objective determines an offender needs to be incarcerated to ensure that society is protected. According Foster (2006), a criminal who in the early days was banished or who is prisoned today cannot harm society. Society is safer because criminals have been removed. (p. 67) The goal of incapacitation is to reduce the rate of crime by putting people in prison. Reformation, or in todays century rehabilitation is to treat the offender so that the present no future threat to society. Rehabilitation, posits that punishment reduces or eliminates future criminal behavior through individual change during confinement. (Foster, 2006, p. 67) The goal of rehabilitation is to predict the future needs of the offender through effective treatment.

Sentencing

State and federal courts administrate sentencing through descriptive guidelines. This is a suggestive tool for judges that shape their sentencing decisions. The objectives for state and federal courts are very similar and direct. Courts may sentence an offender include: (a) to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offenses; (b) to prevent the crime by deterring the offender and others from committing similar offenses; (c) to protect the community from offender; (d) promote the rehabilitation of the offender; (e) make the offender accountable for his or actions; (f) to denounce the conduct of the offender; (g) to recognize the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community. (Sentencing objective, 2003) These objectives are shared by both state and federal courts to apply as strategies when sentencing the convicted. According to Foster (2006), if we could ask people in societies what they were trying to accomplish through punishment, they might well have looked at us in puzzlement, not understanding the punishment can have more than one purpose or objective. (p. 66) According to Foster (2006), in the course of eliminating leniency by imposing sentences that are equally severe, we have driven our jail and prison populations to alltime highs. Many citizens and most politicians evidently want this trend to continue, even if the reasons for the policies are irrational or erroneous. (p. 85) In both state and federal court people who commit more serious violent crimes are more likely to receive a prison sentence. Sentencing impacts both state and federal corrections system through its population growth. Some factors that influence sentencing length include severity of the offense, prior criminal record, and if the offender used violence. Although sentences are getting shorter and fewer people are sent to prison per crime, people are serving a greater proportion of their sentences than they did a decade ago. Even with a

Sentencing

decrease in crime rate prison population still is not decreasing. State system is using an indeterminate sentence to battle overcrowded prison populate, which gives convicted offenders a short minimum sentence after which they can be released on parole if they are considered rehabilitated. The corrections system has been profoundly affected by sentencing changes of the past thirty years. The obvious indicator is population growth. (Foster, 2006) In conclusion, the general purpose of sentencing is to produce a fair case outcome for the convicted offender. When sentencing is handed down by the judge many factors and strategies are used in the process. Sentencing effects corrections because it determines how many people will go to prison and how long they will be there. The more people that are sentenced to prison, the more the prisons become overcrowded, also leads to more violence in the prisons, and problems with being able to control such a large amount of criminals. According to Foster (2006), sentencing is a critical event. It means the difference between freedom and confinement. (p. 65)

Reference Foster, B. (2006). Corrections: The Fundamentals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Sentencing objectives. (2003). Retrieved from http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf

Sentencing