Punishment & Sentencing Assignment

Imprisonment

Goals
Deterrence	To deter offenders and other people who may have the mind to commit  such offenses
Retribution	To requite offender’s wrong doing. The suffering imposed on the offender is considered a counter part of a personal revenge
Incapacitation	To incapacitate the offender
Reformation	To reform the offender so that he or she does not commit the crime again or prevent other people from offending.

 

Types of sentencing	Structure of sentencing
Deferred sentence	Indeterminate/Concurrent
Mandatory sentencing	Determinate /consecutive
Life sentencing	Determinate /consecutive
Presumptive sentencing	Indeterminate /concurrent
Straight sentencing	Determinate /consecutive
Final sentence	Determinate/consecutive
Maximum sentencing	Determinate /concurrent

 

Mandatory sentencing laws

Mandatory sentences refer to the sentences that a judge should impose on a certain offender irrespective of the context of the offense committed.  The judge in such a case does not have any discretion in imposing a maximum or minimum sentencing depending on the type of crime that has been committed.  The laws place a minimum sentence that a give judge should not lower. Many of such laws deal with drug related offenses (Larkin & Bernick, 2014).  In case the offender pleads guilty or the judge finds him or her guilty, they will be given at least the minimum sentence that law has set.   These laws normally vary depending on the state and federal laws (Larkin & Bernick, 2014) .Advocates in such cases normally brings some arguments in support of the laws.  

 The major argument in support of the laws is that they deter criminals, and that they can eliminate sentencing disparities. However, the mandatory laws have in no way eliminated sentencing discretion but have just shifted such discretion to the prosecutors to the judges. The judge may see the need to impose any punishment as per the requirement of the law, but a prosecutor is not under any such obligation in which he or she can charge a defendant with violation of the law whose minimum penalty is mandatory(Gray, 2017).  In addition, the unrestrained prosecutorial discretion serves as a greater evil than judicial discretion that is unlimited. The prosecutor has not been trained to sentence, and therefore, does not exercise discretion in an open manner. The prosecutor who will gain professionally after successfully convicting a person under mandatory minimums has no enough incentive to exercise his discretion in a responsible way (Gray, 2017).

The mandatory minimums have rarely acts as deterrence but have led to swelling of population in the federal prison and even outrageous racial disparities, and thus, causing untold misery. For instance , a federal mandatory sentencing relating to drugs can be considered as unforgiving since an individual  who has previously been charged with just one drug felony could be give a minimum of 29 years.  A person with two prior cases will get a life penalty with no parole. Regardless of such penalties they do not reduce crime rates. Enacting the mandatory penalties either has no proven deterrent effects or has short-terms impacts that do not last long (Gray, 2017).  Moreover, incapacitation does not lead to lower crime rates such as drug dealing or peddling. It is an important aspect of justice in any democratic society that all people should face similar treatment and not be subjected to any kind of direct or indirect adverse discrimination (Larkin & Bernick, 2014). However, it is important to determine the history of the person so that those with one or no past offense not be sentenced the same as constant offenders.  

Reference

Larkin, P., & Bernick, E. (2014). Reconsidering mandatory minimum sentences: the arguments for and against potential reforms. The Heritage Foundation.

 

Gray, A. (2017). Mandatory sentencing around the world and the need for reform. New Criminal Law Review: In International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 20(3), 391-432.