Criminal Justice - Corrections Criminal

Criminal Justice - Corrections CRIMINAL JUSTICE: CRIMINAL SENTENCING ISSUES Criminal Sentencing: Generally, the purpose of sentencing is to assign a type and length of punishment corresponding to particular types of penal violations. Much more specifically, sentencing incorporates five objectives: retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration (Schmalleger, 2001). Retribution reflects the natural instincts of human beings and was featured predominantly throughout human history. In more modern times, criminology theory has deemphasized retribution in formal legislation and policy in favor of functional incapacitation, mainly through incarceration and deterrence.

Similarly, increased attention and effort in the areas of rehabilitation have been employed as a means of crime prevention, instead of focusing on punishing crime, after the fact. Restoration is a concept of compensating victims of crimes, which can be in the form of monetary awards or simply consideration of victims' sentiments about the crime and the criminal during the sentencing phase of trial (Schmalleger, 2001). The main differences in sentencing forms among different states concerns the distinction between determinate and indeterminate sentencing.

The former refers to a system in which specific criminal offenses trigger specific sentences upon conviction as a matter of law that are not subject to judicial discretion. The latter refers to a system in which judges may prescribe very different sentences for conviction on similar offenses.

Proponents of determinate sentencing argue that excessive judicial latitude in sentencing undermines the intent of legislators; that it is necessary to ensure equal treatment under the law to all criminal defendants; that it encourages "judge shopping"; that it undermines truth in sentencing by failing to ensure that convicted criminals actually serve a substantial portion of their criminal sentences; and that it allows for the potential of personal bias and prejudice on the part of judges (Schmalleger, 2001).

Proponents of indeterminate sentencing suggest that determinate sentencing applies inappropriately harsh sentences that cannot take into account mitigating factors to the extent necessary to achieve justice; that it undermines the ability of the criminal justice system to emphasize rehabilitation; and that restricting judicial discretion without changing prosecutorial authority produces an imbalance that favors the prosecution (Schmalleger, 2001).

Some of the best proposals designed to incorporate both sets of concerns are variations of sentencing approaches that allow for certain elements of judicial discretion but within mandatory sentencing guidelines in the form of minimum sentences. By legislating a mandatory minimum sentence, the partial determinant strategy ensures that offenders who perpetrate specific classes of crimes never escape minimum sentences established by legislators for those crimes while still allowing for the exercise of judicial discretion and input as appropriate in individual cases. Contemporary Sentencing Issues Addressed by the U.S.

Sentencing Commission: According to the 2007 report of the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) to Congress, current issues in federal sentencing include guidelines for: modification of penalties associated with offenses related to trafficking crack cocaine including the "100- to-1 ratio" problem; four specific counterterrorism offenses under the U.S.A. PATRIOT Improvement and reauthorization Act of 2005; the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006; and violations of anti-counterfeiting statutes pertaining to commercial product rights infringement.

The "100-to-1" issue is a reference to the fact that under federal law, powdered cocaine and crack cocaine are treated remarkably different. Critics of the 100-to-1 disparity suggest that such different sentences imposed for crimes so similar impact the very communities already suffering from poverty and victimized by the suppliers far "upstream" from the street-level crack cocaine trade. In that regard, sentences imposed for crack cocaine are so much harsher that approximately 100 times as much powdered cocaine is required to approach the sentences imposed in connection with crack cocaine offenses.

This issue is particularly relevant to the disparity inherent in mandatory sentencing and arbitrariness in sentencing, especially since dealers in powdered cocaine are much more likely higher up on the supply chain than distributors of crack cocaine (USSC, 2007). The issues concerning provisions of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act pertain to establishing sentences for crimes established and defined by the ACT, such as narco- terrorism, smuggling munitions or military equipment without a license for transport, mining U.S. waters, and interfering with maritime navigation equipment (USSC, 2007).

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 requires sex offenders to register and imposes criminal penalties for failure to comply. The current federal sentencing issues authorize increasing sentences for failure to register where that failure occurs in conjunction with other relevant offenses related to the welfare of children, in particular.

The sentencing issues arising in connection with counterfeit goods involves increasing sentences for violations of existing laws in relation to the relative value of the counterfeited (legitimate) goods, as well as for the use of certain specific devices designed to circumvent security devices within computerized chips intended to thwart the use of pirated gaming software (USSC, 2007).

The Sentencing Project and National Association of Sentencing Advocates: According to its homepage, the mission of the Sentencing Project is to work toward reforming unfair and ineffective criminal justice policies by promoting alternatives to incarceration that are more beneficial to society. In that regard, the Sentencing Project also seeks to minimize the unintended consequences of criminal justice policies as well (Sentencingproject.org, 2008).

The mission goals of the Sentencing Project coincides with the objectives of the National Association of Sentencing Advocates (NASA), whose main concerns are redressing the direct impact that sentencing laws have on increasing incarceration.