Fairness in Sentencing
Judges should use the advisory guidelines that were established by the United States Sentencing Commission. The guidelines states that judges should avoid judicial discretion and ensure fair and equality in sentencing. In other words, judges should ensure that punishment for equal crimes should be the same. There should be uniformity in punishment and this means that judges should not provide different punishments to offenders who have committed a similar crime (Siegel & Worrall, 2014). Other important point is that judges should evaluate current or present behaviors and avoid evaluation on the basis of past or the future behaviors. In making sentencing decisions for similar crimes, judges should also use the concept of just deserts that states that people have the ability to make moral choice (Siegel & Worrall, 2014). Thus, as offenders commit the same crime, the sentence should be equal and there should be no discretion for the cases. Since the equal justice perspective focus on reducing discretion and providing equal punishment for equal crimes, a homeless person who steals goods from a business should receive the same sentence as a person with assets and income. This is because; both have committed a criminal offense and so both are equal. Both offenders have done a particular offense of shoplifting regardless of the mitigating circumstances and thus, there should be no disparity
Crime victims play a role or they have a greater participation in the sentencing process. For example, a victim is allowed to provide the ‘victim impact statement' where he or she explains the impact of the crime (O'Mahony, 2002). During the hearing, the victims are also allowed to allocute or say anything concerning the crime either to lessen the severity of the punishment or to apologize. In addition to giving the defendant the right to express him or her opinion, the victims also play role in determining the guidelines determination and make sentence recommendations (O'Mahony, 2002). In addition to the role of giving information and participating in the process, victims have the right to restitution in which the victim writes the necessary supporting evidence in the application form for him or her to be compensated.
When determining the sentence of the offender, the impact of the crime on the victim should be a consideration. The ‘Victim Impact Statement' play a significant role as it allows the victim to explain the impact of the crime either financially, physically or emotionally (O'Mahony, 2002). It is important for judges to take into account the long-term or short-term effects of the offense because; first, this process gives the victims a sense of participation in the criminal justice procedures and second the process saves the victim from the trauma he or has may experience while giving evidence to the court. Generally, judges should consider the Victim Impact Statement as this is a fair way of evaluating the position of the victim realistically and the process increases the victim's level of involvement and improves his or her position in the criminal justice process (O'Mahony, 2002). Note that as the victim explains the impact of the crime, the statement given and other important details are put in the case files and later, it can be used during the process. Considering the Victim Impact Statement is a holistic approach to analyzing the victims' needs and rights throughout the criminal justice process.
The habitual offender statute states that an offender who repeats the same offenses many times will receive harsher legal penalties or greater criminal penalties (Melton et al, 2018). I do not support this statute since harsher punishment does not deter crime or it does not prevent reoffending. The Courts hold that harsher punishment or life imprisonment will reduce crime but the bitter truth is that when reoffending, the offender makes rational choices and weighs both the benefits and consequences of the action. Other offenders do not understand the consequences of the actions and so the harsh penalty will have no impact (Melton et al, 2018). Despite the harsher punishment, the rate of crime is rising upon release. This means that a higher cost is used to incarcerate criminals but upon release, they continue reoffending. Thus, harsher punishment does not have any impact on reducing reoffending but the only way to deter crime is to establish treatment services to those reentering the community. Punishing the offender more harshly than the first time is a double jeopardy and it should not be applied to today's society (Melton et al, 2018). Rather punishment should be less costly, safe and it should be directed toward shaping behavior, helping those reentering the community and reducing recidivism.
According to the federal sentencing policy, crack cocaine offenses require a harsher penalty than powder cocaine crimes. I support this policy because first, there are many large-scale crack dealers and their extensive role in the drug trade makes crack the most used recreational drug. In addition, crack is cheap and can be easily afforded by users from the poor socioeconomic background. Despite its lower cost, it is highly addictive and contributes to long-term health consequences. This disparity plays a significant role in punishing the crack traffickers and the street dealers (Tonry & Tonry, 2004). As the dangerous dealers receive harsher penalties there will be a reduction of criminal activities and gangs. However, this policy is not effective since it only focuses on disparity in sentencing but it does not solve the underlying problem; that is the issue of drug abuse. It means that the federal government will need to spend a higher amount of money to build new prisons where the drug dealers will stay (Tonry & Tonry, 2004). It is also menus the federal government is trying to solve the expanding jails and prisons rather a treatment to the users. I argue that the policies should be reformed and new policies should focus on developing substance abuse programs to solve the issue of drug addiction.
References
Siegel J. Larry., & Worrall L. John. (2014). Essentials of Criminal Justice. Cengage Learning
O'Mahony, P. (2002). Criminal justice in Ireland. Dublin: Inst. of Public Administration.
Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., Slobogin, C., Otto, R. K., Mossman, D., & Condie, L.
- (2018). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health
professionals and lawyers.
Tonry, M., & Tonry, M. H. (2004). The Future of Imprisonment. New York: Oxford University
Press.
