Sentencing in Criminal Justice Systems
Sentencing Philosophies:
The United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) has several purposes, among them to: a) "establish sentencing priorities and practices for the federal courts"; b) help the executive branch and Congress as they develop crime policies; and c) to serve as a source of reliable data for the counts, Congress, the public, the scholarly community (www.ussc.gov). The USSC guidelines (philosophy) seek to establishing sentencing strategies that "incorporate the purposes of sentencing" through "just punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation." The USSC guidelines also are aimed at providing "certainty and fairness" within the parameters of "judicial flexibility" (www.ussc.gov).
The philosophy of sentencing -- based on the USSC guidelines -- is based on taking into account "…both the seriousness of the criminal conduct and the defendant's criminal record," according to the USSC. After looking closely at the severity of the offense, the USSC guidelines "assign most federal crimes to one of 43 'offense levels'… [and] each offender is also assigned to one of six 'criminal history categories' based on the extent and recency of his or her past conduct" (www.ussc.gov). The "criminal history category" and the USSC's sentencing table intersect at some point, and judges are urged to "choose a sentence from within the guideline range," the USSC informational material points out.
Factors that go into determination of each sentence:
According to Find Law,...
And the factors that generally go into the sentencing process include: a) is the offender "repeat" or "first time"?; b) was the person working alone or with an accomplice?; c) was the person who committed the crime "under great personal stress or duress"?; d) were persons seriously hurt during the commission of the crime?; e) was the offender "particularly cruel…destructive, vindictive"?; and f) is the offender "genuinely contrite or remorseful"? (Find Law).
Capital Punishment -- pro and con:
There are opinions on both sides of this issue that are well intentioned and deserve consideration. For example, Dr. David B. Muhlhausen, senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation's Center is in support of the
death penalty. Muhlhausen believes the death penalty saves lives. Recently he testified before Congress (the Subcommittee on the
Constitution,
Civil Rights and
Property Rights of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee). His testimony: "Several studies have demonstrated a link between executions and decreases in murder rates," he asserted (Muhlhausen, 2007). The study he sited, the "Dezhbakshs study," revealed that, according to Muhlhausen, "on average" every execution results in "18 fewer murders" (Muhlhausen, p. 1).
That approach is based on data that others raise serious questions about. Indeed, as to the conclusion reached that using legal killing against criminals saves lives, Dr. Richard Berk at the University of Pennsylvania (Professor of Criminology and Statistics) explains that there are "…many statistical problems with the data" involved in that…
