Annotated Bibliography

“§ 3553. Imposition of a Sentence.” 27 May 2010, Accessed 18 Apr. 2017.

Statute 3553 was drafted in congress and was put into effect on may 27, 2010. The goal

of Statute 3553 was to establish guidelines for the imposition of sentences. It required judges and

juries to consider four things when sentencing. One, the nature and circumstances of the offense

and the history and characteristics of the defendant, two, the need for the sentence imposed,

three, the kinds of sentences available, and four, the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range

established for the type of offense.

This statute is fairly current and is in effect at the time of writing. This document is an

official statement on the guidelines for imposing sentences and includes a section on the purpose

of imposing sentences. According to these guidelines the purposes of imposing sentences are to

reflect the seriousness of the offense promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for

the offense; to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; to protect the public from further

crimes of the defendant; and to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational

training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner. However it is

notable that the part of this statute requiring juries to follow these guidelines has been struck out of


Austin, James, et al. “The Use of Incarceration in the United States.” Accessed 24 Apr.


“The Use of Incarceration in the United States” is a paper for the American Society of

Criminology authored by James Austin, Marino A. Bruce, Leo Carroll, Patricia L. McCall, and

Stephen C. Richards. The paper discusses the trend of increasing use of incarceration in the
USA. It then address the role of drugs, race, ethnicity, and gender in the increasing incarceration


This paper is the work of multiple sociologists with Ph.Ds. The American Society of

Criminology is an international organization and is the largest professional criminology society

in the world. The paper itself provides an idea of current purpose of incarceration, and how it

was viewed previously.

Benson, Etienne. “Rehabilitate or Punish?” Monitor on Psychology, vol. 34, no. 7, ser. 1, 1 July

2003, pp. 46–46. American Psychological Association, Accessed 18 Apr. 2017.

The article “Rehabilitate or Punish?” by Etienne Benson discusses the turn to the use of

punitive measures in the USA and the role of psychologists in this field. According to the article

psychologist are under staffed in the US correctional system. In addition to this psychologists

will be responsible for doing research to find the best solution to deal with the increasing prison


“Rehabilitate or Punish?” was published in the Monitor on Psychology which is related to

the American Psychological Association. The APA being the largest scientific and professional

organization of psychologists in the United States. The article talk about the necessity of further

research into the impact of the current punitive policy, and bringing the focus back onto


Supreme Court of the United States. Claiborne v. United States of America. 22 Jan. 2007.








%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29. Accessed 25

Apr. 2017.

In this case between Mario Claiborne and the United States of America, Mario had

pleaded guilty to two drug related charges. The jury at the time had sentenced Mario 15 months

in prison, even though the charges carried a minimum sentence of 37 months. This document is

the support filed by the United States of America to appeal Mario’s sentence and have it


This case highlights the stance of the US government on punitive measures. The

guidelines for punishment would have given Mario a 37 month long jail term, even after

including his young age, and lack of previous incidents. This shows the government places more

emphasis on punishment rather than rehabilitation.

Supreme Court of the United States. David A. Ramey, Jr. v. United States of America. 2 Feb.

2000. Westlaw,

transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=(sc.Search). Accessed 23 Apr. 2017.

In this case, Ramey is appealing his sentence for supposedly selling drugs to an

undercover FBI agent. Ramey argues that the unusually long delay between the event and the
indictment created a bias against Ramey. Due to being unaware of the impending indictment

Ramey was placed at a disadvantage due to being unable to begin building his case at the time of

the supposed incident.

The most important point brought up by this case is that the defense states that the purpose of

any jail time given to Ramey would have been for rehabilitating him. Ramey’s defense states that

Ramey’s move to pennsylvania to escape the drug culture of where he lived served a similar

purpose as a jail sentence would have. This shows that jail is perceived as a method of

rehabilitation, when it is in fact a method solely for punishment.