Goals of Sentencing, Essay Example

Punishment

The goal of punishment within sentencing convictions serves as a vehicle for retribution to “the state” on behalf of victims whom have sustained harm during the commission of criminal acts – whether those acts are either intentional or inadvertent secondary felony or misdemeanor offenses upheld in relation to a target offense. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 provides guidelines to application of sentencing rules regarding criminal convictions, and those sentences might be enhanced state-to-state according to jurisdiction (i.e. gang enhancements in the State of California). Enhancements tend to increase standard criminal sentences up to five times the level of punishment (i.e. 1 year enhances to 5 years) per target offense. Punishment serves to limit the freedoms of convicted criminals by way of retraction of liberties (i.e. free association) up to fines and confinement in prison. Although public humiliation is violation in federal and international laws on the rights of prisoners, the efficacy of conviction as a “moral” punishment continues despite reform. Punishment, then, is two-fold: 1) the end result of due process in conviction of criminal defendants; and 2) a broader category of social justice format employed by citizens up to the present, despite statutory prohibitions against such activities.

Deterrence

Sentencing is in effect intended to proffer a respite period during incarceration, probation, parole, community service, or by payment of established fines for conviction of crimes. Since the latter half of the twentieth century, the evolution of ‘deterrence’ as an ideological goal within sentencing has advanced to the point of deep pocket allocations to programs specifically designed to instill deterrence behavior in convicted parties so that they do not repeat commission of criminal acts in the future.  The influence of this direction within judicial opinion has been especially pronounced in family law cases that involve self-abuse patterns, and drug court cases where much of the harm instigated is addiction related.

Incapacitation

Sentencing toward this end is meant to block defendants from actively circulating in the community in which they formerly resided. Incapacitation is typically associated with jail and prison sentencing, as the guilty party is literally removed from society for a stipulated time within the sentencing guidelines. House arrest and mandate to mental health institutions either temporarily or indefinitely also substantiates the goal of incapacitation, as the defendant is of course either completely prohibited from free association or at least partially to the point of non-normative living protocol. The house arrest scenario might include agreement by the inmate to wear an electronic tracking device, and obviously limits travel for the time period determined.

Rehabilitation

Connected to the deterrence factor in sentencing protocol, rehabilitation is most often connected to crimes committed under the influence, and in particular drunk driving or other substance abuse related charges due to alcohol or drugs. Time spent in court ordered rehabilitation programs may include either residency or outpatient, but mandate to complete adherence to the sentence is almost always required with stipulation that failure to do so will lead to more severe punishment up to incarceration.

Uniformity in the law

Legal certainty is always of import in criminal cases to ensure that defendants should not be convicted until evidentiary proceedings have determined guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the uniformity of the law is one of the goals of sentencing due to the fact that despite preponderance of evidence even in cases of guilt of the most heinous crimes, undue punishment might not be sought for protection of the constitutional rights of the individual under consideration.  Congressional ratification of Congress passed the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Section 994(f) of the provision articulates that uniformity wards against unwarranted sentence disparities “among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct.” Due to the dual element rule stipulation of mental state and act within criminal application, Federal Sentencing Guidelines shifted the focus in sentencing from the offender to the offense so that there is some flexibility in discernment of conduct, but not with allowance toward extreme increase or decrease in sentencing according to the guidelines. If so, there must be clearly stated reasons within the record of the decision, and rule adherence is in fact one of the more effective points of argument in regard to decisions deemed “unfair” on appeal.

References

Seiter, R. P. (2008). Corrections: An introduction, Second Edition. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA) Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1987 [1984] [codified in 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3551–3556 (1988 & Supp. V 1993)].

Worrall, J. L. (2008). Crime control in America: What works?, Second Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.