Sentencing Guidelines - Criminal Justice

 

            The guidelines in place in our society to be imposed upon those who break the law have very different consequences and therefore each has their own unique pros and cons.  While some seem to be beneficial, at least on the outside, they all have their own inner demons.  

 ====================================================

            Throughout history, the problem of incarcerating those individuals who break the laws of the land has always been somewhat of a problem.  Not inasmuch how to lock them up, but rather how long to imprison them, when are they ready to be released or should they be released and who should make these decisions have all been questions that we as a society have tried to answer in different ways.   Today it is rare to find an absolute authority such as a king or a dictator who has total control over sentencing or the appointment of those who do the sentencing.  Rather, as a modern society, usually in the democratic format, the sentencing guidelines that we have come up with, determinate, indeterminate and mandatory all have their good points and their bad points.  Deciding which of them is the lesser evil is what our society has been grappling with for decades now.

            Starting in the 1970s, determinate sentencing, which is defined as a sentence which will be for a fixed length of time - such as a one year prison sentence, became a common practice.   This was due to the realization by society that rehabilitation was not working.  (Cliffnotes.com, 2012)  Side Note:  It is my humble opinion that despite the best efforts of society to stem the tide of crime with the use of determinate sentencing, the bleeding hearts who insist that these violent criminals have rights equal to or greater than the rest of society have negated the effectiveness of this type of sentencing.  While a judge will still make the decision of whether or not the offender goes to jail, the length of time is determined by the law.  The only time the length of incarceration can be changed is for good behavior.  This type of sentence cannot be changed by a parole board or any other agency (ExpertHub.com, 2012), only by a judge.  Since good behavior is something that is taken into account by a parole board, I am uncertain as to why the law states that a parole board cannot change the length of the sentence.  Time off for good behavior is an alteration of a sentence.

            Determinate sentencing is a double edged sword, so to speak.  While it requires that the prisoners serve a greater portion of their sentence in prison, usually 85%, it also contributes to the problem of prison over-crowding (Cliffnotes.com, 2012). 

            Where the 1970s saw the rise of determinate sentencing as the latest deterrent fad, today’s court systems are more inclined towards indeterminate sentencing.  Indeterminate sentencing is a prison term which does not specify a specific length of time but rather a range of time to be given for a specific crime.  This type of sentencing is more apt to be used when the crimes are more serious, such as felonies.  25 years to life is a good example of an indeterminate sentence.  The lesser amount of time is the mandatory time that the criminal will spend in jail and the greater amount of time is the upper limit that a judge can hand out for such a sentence.  However the offender can be released at any time after they have served that minimum amount of time as set by the law (ExpertHub.com, 2012).   

            In the past, the use of indeterminate sentencing was very commonplace amongst both state and federal courts in the hope that the majority of criminals could be rehabilitated.  Judges would determine the sentences and parole boards would subsequently determine the length of time of those sentences.  In this type of sentencing, the prisoners who show that they have made the most progress towards rehabilitation are the ones who are more likely to get early release.   

            The danger with this type of sentencing is that a prisoner can "fool" the courts.  They may act as if they have been rehabilitated, just so that they can be released, when in fact they are just as dangerous as they had been when they were captured.  Then, when they are paroled, they continue to commit their crimes.

            Another potential problem with this is that the criminals who have the right "connections" or the right background (white, Anglo-Saxon, for example) are more apt to be eligible for early release before minorities, regardless of their behaviors.    (ExpertHub.com, 2012)

            A further danger with this type of sentencing is the bias of the judge or the ability to corrupt the judges sentencing via payoffs, bribes, threats, etc. to acquire the minimum sentencing.   

            The third type of sentencing is mandatory sentencing.  Like determinate sentencing, this type also has a fixed amount of time of incarceration.  This is often used for certain non-violent crimes such as drunk driving and other misdemeanors.  It is also used in more serious crimes such as committing a crime with a dangerous weapon, and the selling of drugs.  The difference between mandatory sentencing and determinate sentencing is that judges are unable to reduce the sentence for things such as good behavior. 

            "Mandatory sentencing laws were introduced in the United States after the United States Congress passed the Boggs Act in 1952 and the Narcotics Control Act of 1956 (Laws.com, 2012)”.

            One of the major problems that has been seen when imposing mandatory sentencing is that prosecutors have been able to get around them by entering into plea bargains.  "Federal law, for example, allows prosecutors to ask for sentences below the mandatory minimum for defendants who cooperate by providing evidence against other criminals (CliffsNotes.com, 2012)".  It has also resulted in higher spending by various levels of government to keep more criminals locked up for longer periods of time. This means that a larger portion of the tax revenue generated by all levels of government now goes towards the care and comfort of the criminal instead of social maintenance and upgrading of services for the average citizen.

            A very controversial mandatory sentencing law that has been enacted recently in the state of California is the “Three Strikes Law”.  This law “is a sentencing scheme that adds significant time to the prison sentences of certain repeat offenders convicted of felonies” (shouselaw.com, 2012).  This law is so controversial because it removes all power from the judge who is presiding over these cases.    Thereby subverting justice and replacing it with a de facto legal system.

            One “Three Strikes” case that shows just how this law is being abused is in the case of Leandro Andrade.  Currently, this father of 3 is serving two consecutive life sentences for the theft of nine children’s videos in two separate instances in November of 1995, and he is not alone.  Approximately 25% of the inmates in California prisons who are serving life sentences are there on petty theft charges with a prior (shouselaw.com, 2012).  This is contributing to the overcrowding epidemic that is running rampant in California prisons.

            While this type of sentencing may seem like an effective deterrent against crime due to the potential criminal knowing what his or her fate will be if (and when) he/she is caught, it is dependent on them thinking twice before committing the crime.  Unless the offender fears the consequences of his or her actions, it will have little to no effect.   It is also highly unlikely that a criminal plans on getting caught unless it is wintertime, they live in a cold climate and they are homeless and hungry.

            In summary, we have three different basic sentencing structures that are used for most crime, criminal and civil.  Each has seen it’s time in the limelight as being the final solution to the problem of reducing crime or preventing repeat offenses.  Yet, each has demonstrated both strengths and weaknesses that set the limits to the effectiveness of the function for which they were designed.  These three sentencing formats are only the latest tools in the ongoing evolution of social reform and crime prevention.

=====================================================

Michelle Hoffmannn is a 3rd year Criminal Justice Major, as well as an online marketer, ezine publisher, author, web designer, mother and wife.  You can visit her site at http://michellehoffmann.com