Sample Assessments

The role of sentencing plays an integral part in the criminal justice system process because it is how criminals are punished. Punishing criminals serves two ultimate purposes and those purposes are: “deserved infliction of suffering on evildoers” and “the prevention of crime” (Professor Herbert Packer, 2006 Criminal Justice in Action: The Core). There are four basic philosophical reasons for sentencing and they are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.
     Retribution is one of the oldest and common justifications for punishing someone. In a system that favors retribution, criminals who willing choose to break the rules of society must be punished for their actions. Retribution relies on the principle of just deserts; under the just dessert principle the punishment of a crime must be in proportion to the severity of the crime. Deterrence is the second philosophical reason for sentencing. This is a strategy of preventing crime through the threat of punishment. By setting an example, this is sending a message to potential criminals that certain actions will not be tolerated. Incapacitation is a strategy for preventing crime by detaining wrongdoers in prison, thereby separating them from the community and reducing criminal opportunities. John Q. Wilson uses a blunt statement to summarize the justification for incapacitation. “Wicked people exist. Nothing avails except to set them apart from innocent people” (Thinking about Crime 1975). The last of the philosophies is rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is the philosophy that society is best served when wrongdoers are not simply punished, but provided the resources needed to eliminate criminality from their behavioral patterns.
     Criminal sentencing in the United States shifts between the institutional powers among the three branches of the government. Rehabilitation goals dominated most of the twentieth century, and legislatures were more likely to enforce indeterminate sentencing policies. Legislatures are responsible for making laws and for passing the criminal codes that determine the length of sentences. Penal codes with indeterminate sentences set a minimum and maximum amount of time a person serves for a certain crime. To give an example the indeterminate sentence for manslaughter could be ten to fifteen years. In the example above for intermediate sentencing a judge determines if the person serves the minimum of ten years, the maximum of fifteen years or any time in between the minimum and maximum time of imprisonment. Determinate sentencing is a sentencing that is direct and is also know as fixed sentencing. In determinate sentencing an offender will serve the exact amount of time to which they are sentenced. The judge has no power in determinate sentencing and must comply with the sentencing terms set fourth by the legislator. In most sentencing the offender rarely serves their full sentence. Prison administrators often give prisoners the opportunity to reduce their time by doing good time also know as behaving well. The state legislature passed a truth-in-sentencing law that requires murderers and others convicted of serious crimes to complete at least 85 percent of their sentences with no time off for good behavior.
     I believe that both arguments on capital punishment are valid and that both arguments have very rationale points. Capital punishment can sometimes kill innocent people and one life loss is one to many. Capital punishment has always been a very controversial issue in the American public. People who are against capital punishment believe that it is an immoral act and should not be practiced in American criminal justice system. They also believe that innocent live can be killed in the process. People who are for capital punishment believe that it is a highly effect form of punishment that should be continued. They believe that Capital punishment is used to protect society from the worst of criminals. It has been argued that capital punishment keeps peaceful condition in the United States. I believe that in some ways capital punishment gives a criminal something to think about before committing a crime.
     The debate of capital punishment makes it hard for law enforcement to do their job and issue out what they think is the right form of punishment for the criminal. Capital punishment also gives other forms of punishment the question of fairness. How due you know if some one is really innocent or guilty. All of the factors of sentencing and punishment I have discusses plays a major role in our judicial system today and I think there is really no way to be certain on what is right.

References

Gaines, L, & Miller, R. (2006). Inside criminal law. Criminal Justice in Action (3rd Ed.). Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing.