In this journal entry, reflect on at least two things you learned or discovered through the Chapter's readings. Reflect on how a particular topic in the chapter was interesting, challenging,

06 Nov In this journal entry, reflect on at least two things you learned or discovered through the Chapter’s readings. Reflect on how a particular topic in the chapter was interesting, challenging,

Posted at 12:59h in Law / Criminal by

In this journal entry, reflect on at least two things you learned or discovered through the Chapter's readings. Reflect on how a particular topic in the chapter was interesting, challenging, boring, surprising to you and how you may apply a particular concept or theory you learned in the reading in your current or future profession.

Instructions: There is no minimum word limit for your journals, however, you will need to put in some effort and write at least a couple of good paragraphs for your reflection journals.

Schmalleger_CJ_Brief_lecture_ch09_accessiblePPT-Tagged.pdf

Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction

Thirteenth Edition

Chapter 9 Sentencing

Introduction

• Sentencing – The imposition of a criminal sanction on a

person convicted of a crime – Follows what is intended to be an impartial

judicial proceeding to ascertain criminal responsibility

• Most sentencing decisions are made by judges

• Juries may be involved in some cases, especially where a death sentence is possible

The Philosophy and Goals of Criminal Sentencing

• Sentencing philosophies are intertwined with issues of religion, morals, values, and emotions

• Modern sentencing practices are influenced by five goals

• Each goal of sentencing represents a quasi- independent sentencing philosophy

Table 9.1 Sentencing Goals and Purposes

Sentencing Goal Purpose

Retribution A just deserts perspective that emphasizes taking revenge on a criminal perpetrator or group of offenders

Incapacitation The use of imprisonment or other means to reduce the likelihood that a particular offender will commit more crime

Deterrence A sentencing rationale that seeks to inhibit criminal behavior through punishment or the fear of punishment

• General deterrence Seeks to prevent future crimes like the one for which the sentence is being imposed

• Specific deterrence Seeks to prevent a particular offender from engaging in repeat criminality

Rehabilitation The attempt to reform a criminal offender

Restoration A goal of sentencing that seeks to make the victim “whole again”

Retribution

• The act of taking revenge on a criminal perpetrator

• The earliest-known rationale for punishment

• Corresponds to the model of sentencing called “just deserts”

– Just deserts holds that criminal offenders deserve the punishment they receive

• The primary sentencing tool of the just deserts model is imprisonment

Incapacitation

• The use of imprisonment or other means to reduce the likelihood that an offender will commit future offenses

• Seeks to protect innocent members of society

• Separates offenders from the community to reduce opportunities for further criminality

• The “lock ‘em up” approach

Deterrence (1 of 2)

• Using the example or threat of punishment to convince people that criminal activity is not worthwhile

• Overall goal is crime prevention

• General deterrence seeks to influence the future behavior of people who may be tempted to turn to crime by making an example of the person sentenced

• Specific deterrence seeks to reduce the likelihood of recidivism by convicted offenders

Deterrence (2 of 2)

• One of the more rational goals of sentencing – Easily articulated – Can objectively investigate the amount of

punishment needed to deter

• Deterrence is compatible with the goal of incapacitation

• Retribution is oriented toward the past; deterrence is a strategy for the future and aims to prevent new crimes

Rehabilitation

• Rehabilitation involves the attempt to reform a criminal offender

• Seeks to bring about fundamental changes in offenders and their behavior

• Fell victim in the 1970s to the nothing-works doctrine

Restoration

• Restoration attempts to make the victim and community “whole” again

• Restorative justice – Builds on restitution and community

participation in an attempt to make amends to the victim

– Community-focused – Primary goal is improving the quality of life for

all members of the community

Table 9.2 Differences between Retributive and Restorative Justice Retributive Justice Restorative Justice

Crime is an act against the state, a violation of a law, an abstract idea.

Crime is an act against another person or the community.

The criminal justice system controls crime. Offender accountability is defined as taking punishment.

Crime control lies primarily with the community. Offender accountability is defined as assuming responsibility and taking action to repair harm.

Crime is an individual act with individual responsibility. Crime has both individual and social dimensions of responsibility.

Victims are peripheral to the process of resolving a crime. Victims are central to the process of resolving a crime.

The offender is defined by deficits. The offender is defined by the capacity to make reparation.

The emphasis is on adversarial relationships. The emphasis is on dialogue and negotiation.

Pain is imposed to punish, deter, and prevent. Restitution is a means of restoring both parties; the goal is reconciliation.

The community is on the sidelines, represented abstractly by the state.

The community is the facilitator in the restorative process.

The response is focused on the offender’s past behavior. The response is focused on harmful consequences of the offender’s behavior; the emphasis is on the future and on reparation.

There is dependence on proxy professionals. There is direct involvement by both the offender and the victim.

Source: From Gordon Bazemore and Mark S. Umbreit, Balanced and Restorative Justice: Program Summary (Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1994), p. 7.

Indeterminate Sentencing (1 of 2)

• Encourages rehabilitation through the use of general and relatively unspecific sentences

• Characterized by vast judicial choice—gives judges wide discretion in choosing among sentencing options

Explanation of Indeterminate Sentencing

• Relies on judges’ discretion to choose among types of sanctions and to set upper and lower limits on sentences

• When offender is convicted on multiple charges, judicial discretion extends to imposition of current or consecutive sentences

– Consecutive sentences—2+ sentences served one after the other

– Concurrent sentences—2+ sentences served simultaneously

Indeterminate Sentencing (2 of 2)

• The indeterminate model was created to take into consideration differences in the degree of guilt

• The inmate’s behavior while incarcerated is the primary determinant of the amount of time served

• A few states use a partially indeterminate sentencing model

– Judges can only specific maximum amount of time to be served

– Minimum not under control of sentencing authority

Critiques of Indeterminate Sentencing (1 of 2)

• Allows judges’ personalities and personal philosophies to produce too wide a range of sentencing practices

• Offenders may be sentenced on the basis of personal and social characteristics, not culpability

• Defense may request delays to manipulate the selection of the judge

• Tends to produce dishonesty in sentencing

Critiques of Indeterminate Sentencing (2 of 2)

• Gain Time – The amount of time deducted from prison time

on a given sentence as a consequence of participation in special projects or programs

• Good Time – The amount of time deducted from prison time

on a given sentence as a consequence of good behavior

Structured Sentencing (1 of 2)

• Structured sentencing addresses three fundamental sentencing principles

– Proportionality—sanction severity should be directly related to seriousness of crime

– Equity—similar crimes should be punished similarly

– Social debt—offender’s criminal history should be considered in sentencing

Structured Sentencing (2 of 2)

• In the 1970s, states began to address these concerns by developing a structured sentencing model

• Structured sentencing includes – Determinate sentencing – Presumptive sentencing – Voluntary/advisory sentencing guidelines

Determinate Sentencing

• A form of structured sentencing that requires that a convicted offender be sentenced to a fixed term that may be reduced by good time or gain time

• Eliminates the use of traditional parole

• Specifies an anticipated release date

Voluntary/Advisory Sentencing Guidelines

• A form of structured sentencing that includes recommended sentencing policies

– Not required by law – Usually based on past sentencing practices – Serve as guides to judges

• Guidelines may build on either determinate or indeterminate sentencing structures

Presumptive Sentencing (1 of 2)

• A form of structured sentencing

• Guidelines for presumptive sentencing differ from other structured sentencing models

– Guidelines developed by a sentencing commission rather than state legislature

– Explicit and highly structured – Not voluntary/advisory

Presumptive Sentencing (2 of 2)

• Guidelines allow judges to consider aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the crime

• Aggravating circumstances—call for a tougher sentence, may include especially heinous behavior

• Mitigating circumstances—call for a lesser sentence, reduce but do not eliminate criminal responsibility

Federal Sentencing Guidelines

• Comprehensive Crime Control Act (1984)—federal government adopted presumptive sentencing for nearly all federal offenders

• Truth-in-sentencing—close correspondence between the imposed sentence and the time actually served in prison

• Nearly eliminated good-time credits, began phasing out federal parole

• Provided funds for states that adopt truth-in- sentencing laws

Federal Guideline Provisions (1 of 2)

• Guidelines specified a sentencing range from which judges had to choose

• Departures expected only in the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances

• Departures may become the basis for appellate review

• Judges deviating from the guidelines originally required to provide written reasons

Federal Guideline Provisions (2 of 2)

• Guidelines built around a table – 43 rows—each corresponding to one offense

level ▪ Penalties overlap levels to discourage

unnecessary litigation – 6 rows corresponding to criminal history

categories ▪ Determined on point basis ▪ Career offenders may be placed in the

highest criminal history category

Plea Bargaining under the Guidelines

• About 90% of federal sentences result from guilty pleas

• Plea bargaining agreement must meet specific conditions

– Must be fully disclosed in the record of the court – Must detail the actual conduct of the offense

• Melendez v. U.S. (1996)—federal judges may depart from the guidelines but cannot accept plea bargains that would result in a sentence lower than the minimum required by law for a particular offense

The Legal Environment of Structured Sentencing

• Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) – Requiring sentencing judges to consider facts

not proven to a jury violates the Constitution

• U.S. v. Booker and U.S. v. Fanfan (2006) – Made federal sentencing guidelines merely

advisory – Gave federal judges considerable discretion in

imposing punishments – Judges must take guidelines into consideration

but do not have to follow them

The Legal Environment of Structured Sentencing-Cases

• Harris v. U.S. (2002)

• U.S. v. O’Brien (2010)

• Blakely v. Washington (2004)

• Cunningham v. California (2007)

• Rita v. U.S. (2007)

• Gall v. U.S. (2007)

• Alleyne v. U.S. (2013)

Three-Strikes Laws

• First law appeared in California in 1994

• About half the states have passed three-strikes legislation

• Effectiveness questionable

• A 2012 review found that 16 states had modified laws in response to difficult economic conditions

• Supreme Court has upheld three-strikes convictions in the face of 8th Amendment claims of cruel and unusual punishment

Mandatory Sentencing

• A structured sentencing scheme that allows no leeway in the nature of the sentence imposed

• Does not allow for judicial discretion

• Diversion – The official suspension of criminal or juvenile

proceedings against an alleged offender at any point after a recorded justice system intake but before the entering of a judgment

Sentencing and Today’s Prison Crisis

• Get-tough-on-crime policies have dramatically increased the use of incarceration

• Crime rates decreasing but incarceration rates increasing

• Puts huge financial burdens on state and federal governments

Figure 9.2 Incarceration Rates vs. Crime Rates in the United States, 1978–2017

Innovations in Sentencing

• Some judges are using discretionary sentencing to impose truly unique punishments

• Some judges have used shaming strategies to deter wrongdoers

• Considerable support in criminal justice for shaming as a crime-reduction strategy

Questions about Alternative Sanctions (1 of 2)

• Alternative sanctions

– The use of court-ordered community service, home detention, day reporting, drug treatment, psychological counseling, victim-offender programming, or intensive supervision in lieu of other more traditional sanctions

Questions about Alternative Sanctions (2 of 2)

• Justice reinvestment

– Prioritizes the use of alternatives to incarceration for eligible convicted offenders

– Reinvests savings into effective crime prevention programs

The Presentence Investigation (1 of 3)

• Prior to imposing sentence, judge may ask for information on convicted defendant’s background

• Key driver behind many sentencing decisions is offender risk and needs assessment (RNA)

– Factors that increase likelihood of reoffending suggest sentencing offender to incarceration

– Factors that increase chances of rehabilitation may suggest probation or reduced prison term

The Presentence Investigation (2 of 3)

• Presentence investigation (P S I) involves the examination of a convicted offender’s background prior to sentencing

• Usually conducted by probation or parole officers

• Three main types – Detailed written report on the defendant’s

personal and criminal history – Abbreviated written report – Verbal report to the court

The Presentence Investigation (3 of 3)

• Sources of information – F B I’s National Crime Information Center – Individual jurisdictions’ records – The defendant (information should be

corroborated with other sources)

• P S I also includes investigating officer’s recommendations

• Jurisdictions vary in use of P S I information

Victims’ Rights (1 of 3)

• Grassroots movement to increase victims’ rights began in the early 1970s

• Sentencing process now frequently includes consideration of victims’ needs

• Victims’ assistance programs offer services and help victims secure rights

• No federal victims’ rights amendment, but over 30 states have passed victims’ rights amendments

Victims’ Rights (2 of 3)

• Victim and Witness Protection Act (1982)

• Victims of Crime Act (1984)

• Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994)

• Violence against Women Act (1994)

Victims’ Rights (3 of 3)

• The philosophical basis of today’s victims’ movement found in the restorative justice model

• U S A PATRIOT Act amended 1984 Victims of Crime Act to provide for victims of terrorism

• Crime Victims’ Rights Act (2004) gives statutory rights to victims of federal crimes

Victim-Impact Statements

• A statement made by the victim or survivor to sentencing authorities before sentencing

– May be a written document included in the PSI report

– Victim may testify directly at sentencing – May also submit victim-impact video

• One study of the efficacy of victim-impact statements found that sentencing decisions are rarely affected by them

Sentencing Rationales

• Sentencing is meant to protect the public while serving the various goals of sentencing

• Sentencing philosophies affect sanctions that are imposed

• One commonality is the four traditional sanctions that dominate the thinking of most legislators and judges

Figure 9.3 Four Traditional Sentencing Options

Sentencing Practices

• Less than half of all convicted felons receive active prison terms

• However, the number of defendants receiving active prison time has increased dramatically

Figure 9.4 The Sentencing of Convicted Felons in State Courts, by Type of Sentence

Figure 9.5 Court-Ordered Prison Commitments, 1960–2016

Fines (1 of 2)

• One of the oldest forms of punishment – Problems include built-in inequities and

widespread failure to collect fines – Inequities occur when offenders with different

financial resources are fined similar amounts

• Renewed interest in fines as a sentencing alternative

– Reduce prison crowding – Contribute to state/local coffers – Lower tax burden

Fines (2 of 2)

• Often imposed for relatively minor law violations

• Most likely to be imposed where the offender has both a clean record and the ability to pay

• Judges often reluctant to impose fines – Fines allow more affluent offenders to “buy their

way out” – Poor offenders cannot pay fines

Death: The Ultimate Sanction

• Capital punishment is the most extreme sentencing option

• Federal government and 31 states use capital punishment

• Federal law recognizes 60 capital offenses

• States are also expanding the types of crimes for which a death sentence can be imposed

• Methods of imposing death vary by state – The majority of states use lethal injection – Electrocution is the second most-common

method

Habeas Corpus Review (1 of 2)

• All death sentences automatically reviewed by appellate courts

• Leads to long delays before sentences carried out – Average of 15 years, 8 months between

imposition of death sentence and execution – Contravenes idea that punishment should be

swift and certain

Habeas Corpus Review (2 of 2)

• Writ of habeas corpus &#x201

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.

Do you need an answer to this or any other questions?

About Wridemy

We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.

How It Works

To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Are there Discounts?

All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.

06 Nov In this journal entry, reflect on at least two things you learned or discovered through the Chapter’s readings. Reflect on how a particular topic in the chapter was interesting, challenging,

About Wridemy

We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.

How It Works

Are there Discounts?

Hire a tutor today CLICK HERE to make your first order

Related Tags

About us

Quick help

Subjects covered