Criminal sentencing practices and policy considerations

¶ … criminal justice system comprises of key features that generally include the criminal act, investigations into it and subsequently arresting the suspect, abhorrence to suspect's rights in the course of due process, the trial as well as the sentencing after a guilty verdict has been passed. The sentencing of a suspect follows the guilty verdict and at this stage of the criminal justice process, the judge determines the suitable punishment. This is the most important aspects of the criminal justice system and pivotal in the pursuit of preventing crime. The sentencing stage is based on four key objectives that include deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and retribution.

Deterrence

In general terms deterrence in the criminal justice system is expected to have two effects. The clear certainty of action against offenders, potential law breakers should be deterred by the risk of arrest and second, the punishment may affect behavior change by the potential offender weighing the severity of the punishment against the criminal act. According to Wright (2010), this forms the basis of the "three strike and truth in sentencing" policies as a threat for dire consequences against those engaging in criminal activities. However, the problem with this approach is the assumption of potential criminals as rational which might not usually be the case (Mumola, 1999). The other limitation of deterrence is the fact that most crimes do not lead to arrests therefore the effect of deterrence is drastically reduced. Wright (2010) asserts that the enhanced punishment severity is most likely to have little to no effect on potential criminals as they think they will not be apprehended for their actions. A body of research point at the behavior change in response to the legal threats other than the no effect of deterrence (Tonry, 2008). It is also assumed that potential criminals know the severity of crimes a deterrence; it is however true that for there to be an effect, potential offenders must be aware of the consequences before they commit a crime.

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation is meant to teach offenders or criminals a chance to learn their debilitating issues and instill change in their behavior in order to not engage in criminal activities, some argue that it is a better solution to crime deterrence (Gadek, 2013). Rehabilitation takes many forms that could include programs such as drug addiction, alcohol addiction, and violent behavior rehabilitation, among others. Rehabilitation has taken a different definition in the criminal justice system, one centered around opportunities for education as compared to the twentieth century definition that focused on individualistic treatment programs (Raynor & Robinson, 2009). However, one of the major challenges of rehabilitation in the criminal justice system is its association with discriminatory justice practices. According to McNeill (2012), rehabilitation is problematic due to the biases associated with the selection of who gets qualified for the programs. The other challenge is the level to which assessment and the interventions satisfy the rehabilitations objectives including issues such as gender sensitivity and cultural diversity (Robinson & Crow, 2009).

It is important for rehabilitation to target specific characteristics of the criminals as well as the challenges they face that can manipulated in treatment as well as those that can predict future criminal activities such as anger and drug abuse. In addition, the rehabilitation program needs to be implemented in a way that suits the participants and utilizes therapeutic methods tested by scholars.

Incapacitation

Zimring and Hawkins (1995), explain that incapcitation is generally accepted as a primary crime prevention technique in the criminal justice system. It is also accepted in the criminal justice system that some criminals or offenders need to spend longer periods incapacitated due to the seriousness of their crime as well the threat they pose to the society. There are however issues concerning the extent to which this strategy should be used and its cost implication in regard to crime prevention strategy. In addition, it is possible that prisons may be reserved specifically for selected people considered dangerous and most likely repeat offenders. It is also possible that there would be a situation where a large number of felons would be incarcerated. Therefore, the effectiveness of incapacitation in reducing crime still remains a controversial issue. In the same line, there have been rigorous studies carried out to examine the effectiveness of this concept and mostly focused on creating models to evaluate its effect on a personal level (Zimring and Hawkins 1995). Nonetheless, the process of evaluation and estimation of the benefits of crime prevention that result from incarceration is complicated. Therefore, an estimation of crime occurrence and the period of active criminals would give clear guidelines. In addition, Sherman et al. (1996), assert that abody of studies centered around incapacitation reveal little positive effect of the concept in crime reduction.

Retribution