Words: 1615
Dawn Drinovsky Capstone Project One Nov. 22, 2011 Trial a. Interrogation and Arraignment- Guidelines and Process of Law b. Trial- Judge and Supreme court roles c. Sentencing ??? 3 types Sentencing a. Determinate- pros and cons b. Indeterminate- pros and cons c. Mandatory- pros and cons d. Specific or general deterrence Determinate sentencing a. Time- Each punishment is set person to person regardless b. Punishment- does not discriminate c. Community- deter people from committing it again Indeterminate Sentencing . Courts and judges role in helping the offender b. Community outlooks c. Fines and minimums Mandatory sentencing a. Maximum fines and set prison sentences b. No judge discretion, follows the constitution When a person is interrogated it means they are taken into custody and await trial, arraignment, and facing a judge to determine their punishment and enter their plea. In the future of most criminals they are looking at a sentence to serve for the punishment of the law they broke, or crime they committed.
These sentences have specific and general deterrence as well as guidelines that the constitution says we must follow. The federal sentencing guidelines are the most controversial and most complex of all the sentencing reform efforts. (Rubuck, 2001). There are three types of sentencing that a criminal will more than likely be facing from a reoffender of misdemeanors to felony charges. Mandatory sentencing is one of them in which leaves little or no discretion to judges in setting the terms of a sentence or length.
In states where a prisoner is presumptively entitled to parole release, the denial of parole increases the maximum punishment without a jury finding the relevant facts beyond a reasonable doubt. (Ball, 2009) It is based on the crime committed. Indeterminate sentencing is after conviction for a crime which does not state a specific period of time or release date. It is also stating that based on general deterrence of a good life, and your likely hood to reoffend and your job, etc. , you have a chance a chance of being released in 5 years, instead of 10.
Determinate sentencing is the opposite of indeterminate, it states that everyone has to serve a certain amount of time and the more you offend the worse your punishment, sentencing. It means that a person who has two felonies and commits another one will serve more time in prison verses someone who had no felonies and committed the same crime. As California says “three strikes and you are out. ” Determinate sentencing is also known as “fixed sentencing. ” It is when a criminal gets a definite prison term. Inmates are told their earliest release dates upon entry into the prison.
More inmates were found to be either opposed to or undecided about than in favor of determinate sentencing. ( Ball 2009) Even in determinate sentencing good time and credit still apply to those who push themselves in a positive way. This sentencing would benefit a person aiming at general deterrence because it increases public awareness about what the punishment will be for a given crime, lets people see what the affect is. Some people think that determinative sentencing will increase “fairness” or “justice” in sentencing by reducing the discretion and bias of individual judges and juries.
After the booking process he will be held for an arraignment where he will be put in front of a judge that then decides if he will be able to post bail or not, and set the amount which is looked upon on the dependency of bail, are they likely to return? (Roberson and Stucky 2007) This makes a positive outlook for those who seek consistency and want to be fair. Non-determinate sentencing, therefore, is better from certain standpoints: the judge can consider the defendant’s mental state, testimony, background, job, history, and likeliness to offend again, things that determinate sentences don’t allow into the equation.
Indeterminate sentencing is a system of sentencing in which a legislature establishes maximum and minimum terms for each crime and a judge makes a discretionary decision as to what the maximum and minimum sentences should be for each convicted offender. Being an illegal immigrant would put a hold on somebody who was not a US citizen until he had an immigration bond, where they wait for his case to finish and then proceed with deportation proceedings. (Roberson and Stucky 2007) For those whose sentence is prison, a parole board determines the amount of time each inmate serves under correctional supervision.
Indeterminate sentencing is the courts way to try and help those that are worth helping. In states with indeterminate sentencing, parole boards can release inmates once they have served the minimum part of their sentences. The indeterminate sentence laws further reduce the amount of time served when a person is in prison and looks positively at life and is on good behavior daily. They have a chance of getting out before the bad guy next to them who is trouble daily. That guy will more than likely spend full time allowed by the judge behind bars.
For instance, one case involved a male offender over 40 with a prior record consisting of six other arrest, three convictions, and two incarcerations, who was found guilty of nine counts of extortionate credit transactions, and related to income tax violations leaving this man to face anywhere from 3 years in prison with no fine to 20 years in prison with a $65,000. 00 fine. (Rubuck, 2001) The more people they can get on good behavior the less crowding we will have in our prisons.
Some people will argue that this type of sentencing allows judges too much discretion. I believe in justice and that a person should have the right to earn his way out sooner. Critics will say they should stay in but I would rather have someone walking next to me that stole food for his child than someone who is on bail for overcrowding awaiting trial who beat his girlfriend and child up. In mandatory sentencing the judge gives a time frame and that frame is not broken or cracked, it is a set time that a person will mandatorily spend behind bars.
California’s “three strikes, you’re out” law is mandatorily set for an offender’s whom their first strike must be a serious or violent felony, they will receive normal sentencing. The offenders’ second strike also must be a serious or violent felony, but they will serve a double sentence. An offender’s third strike may be any felony, and they will serve mandatory 25 years to life in prison sentence. It is very expensive hitting about $5. 5 billion per year. Most “third strikers” are now doing 25 to life for non-violent crimes.
Mandatory sentencing refers to the practice of parliament setting a fixed penalty for a criminal offender. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries mandatory sentencing was used for a wide range of offences. In the course of the nineteenth century, however, this approach was largely abandoned in favor of parliament setting only a maximum penalty, with the sentencing judge responsible for determining the appropriate sentence for individual offenders (Morgan 1999, p. 267).
Some minor offences in all jurisdictions, such as speeding, still carry mandatory penalties although these are not mandatory penalties in the strict sense as courts retain some discretion over their imposition. Contemporary debates about mandatory sentencing usually refer to a particular form of mandatory sentencing that involves the imposition of a significant minimum penalty, usually a jail sentence, with penalties escalating for subsequent offences. Many jurisdictions in the United States (Tonry 1996, p. 34) These amendments are colloquially referred to as the “three strikes and you’re out” sentencing laws. In assessing the legal, social and other impacts of mandatory sentencing, this paper scrutinizes the arguments and the evidence for mandatory sentencing. The main claims made by advocates of mandatory sentencing are as follows: that it prevents crime; that it provides consistency in sentencing; and that it is a democratic response to widespread public concern about crime.
It is argued that mandatory sentencing prevents crime through incapacitation and deterrence, incapacitating repeat offenders and deterring those offenders as well as other potential offenders. The world is going to have crime and the world is going to have people who re-offend in those crimes. It is the courts and the justice system to ensure that criminals as well as non-offending citizens are treated equal and protected to the rights of a United States citizen. References Ruback, R. , & Wroblewski, J. (2001). The federal sentencing guidelines:
Psychological and policy reasons for simplification. Psychology, Public Policy, And Law, 7(4), 739-775. doi:10. 1037/1076-8971. 7. 4. 739 Ball, W. (2009). HEINOUS, ATROCIOUS, AND CRUEL: APPRENDI, INDETERMINATE SENTENCING, AND THE MEANING OF PUNISHMENT. Columbia Law Review, 109(5), 893-972. Roberson C. , Wallace H. , Stuckey G. (2007). Procedures in the justice system/8th Ed: Pearson Education, Inc. Larson, C. J. , & Berg, B. L. (1989). Inmates’ Perceptions of Determinate and Indeterminate Sentences. Behavioral Sciences Lowenthal, G. T. (1993).
Mandatory Sentencing Laws: Undermining the Effectiveness of Determinate Sentencing Reform. California Law Review, 81(1), 61. aw, 7(1), 127-137. Barkow, R. E. (2003). RECHARGING THE JURY: THE CRIMINAL JURY’S CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE IN AN ERA OF MANDATORY SENTENCING. University Of Pennsylvania Law Review, 152(1), 33-127. Ball, W. (2009). HEINOUS, ATROCIOUS, AND CRUEL: APPRENDI, INDETERMINATE SENTENCING, AND THE MEANING OF PUNISHMENT. Columbia Law Review, 109(5), 893-972. Larson C, Berg B. Inmates’ Perceptions of Determinate and Indeterminate Sentences.
Behavioral Sciences & The Law [serial online]. Winter89 1989;7(1):127-137. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed November 16, 2011. Lowenthal, G. T. (1993). Mandatory Sentencing Laws: Undermining the Effectiveness of Determinate Sentencing Reform. California Law Review, 81(1), 61. (1992, May 6). Where Sentencing Guidelines Go Wrong. New York Times. p. 28. Lowenthal, G. T. (1993). Mandatory Sentencing Laws: Undermining the Effectiveness of Determinate Sentencing Reform. California Law Review, 81(1), 61.