Sentencing Process Define Sentencing Process Pennsyliva New

Sentencing Process

Define sentencing process Pennsyliva New Jersey

The oxford advanced learners' dictionary describes sentencing as, to state that somebody is to have a certain punishment. This essay will start by first giving a broad definition of the sentencing process in the context of two states that include New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Secondly the essay will give a summary of the evolution of the sentencing process and then it will spell out if indeed the reforms have helped reduced recidivism or not. Fourthly before concluding the study will draw out a comparison of the federal and state sentencing process also in the context of the two states and it will seek to affirm which one of the two is better than the other.

The Sentencing Process of Pennsylvania and New Jersey

In both states the sentencing process usually commences when a suspect is apprehended or arrested and it is bound to end at any point not necessarily the up to the time of sentencing, depending on the circumstances and the facts of a case.

When a suspect is first placed under arrest, the first thing an officer does is to inform the suspect of his or her constitutional rights that comprise of the right to obtain the advice from a lawyer and the right to remain silent. Important to note about this stage is that in both states the suspect is allowed by law to make more than one call to either family members or personal attorney, secondly the law requires that a suspect be charged formally with a crime in a specified time duration and if otherwise he or she should be released.

The formal sentencing process begins after one is charged with a crime of which the suspect is booked, and depending on the circumstance of the case and the charge a suspect may be released out of custody while the hearing of the case continues either through bail or through personal recognizance. When the hearing process begins the suspects enters a plea of either guilty, not guilty or no contest. If the plea is for "not guilty" the court will set the terms of the suspect's release or the release will depend on the verdict of the trial. In a case where the suspect enters a plea of guilty or no contest there will be no trial case and the suspect will either be sentenced immediately or in sentencing can be done in the future. When the sentencing is set to be done in the future, the courts in either States will decide if the suspect should be held in custody awaiting the sentencing to begin or whether he or she should be released and ordered to appear for sentencing.

However, it is important to note that for those suspects who have entered a plea of not guilty and the verdicts declares them not guilty the criminal process will end there, but if found guilty the sentencing process will proceed as described above and one shall only be released after he or she clears the period of which he has been sentenced or the release can be ordered by a court of appeal overruling the earlier sentencing.

Evolution of the sentencing process

Berman in his book titled the "Supreme Court Review" is quoted describing the sentencing process in the 19th century and of seventy five years of the 20th century as "a highly discretionary, rehabilitative "medical" model approach to sentencing." In that judges in both the federal and state courts had nearly unfettered discretion to impose on suspects any sentence from within the broad statutory ranges provided for criminal proceedings. This approach aimed at customizing the sentences to be in line with the rehabilitative prospects and progress of each charged prisoner.

The modern sentencing reforms which were instigated thirty years ago were fueled by what critics sighted as unfair sentencing process in the old regime. The older sentencing process was faulted for giving substantial and undue differences in the duration and types of sentences given out to similar offenders, and some studies found that personal factors such as an suspect's race, gender and socioeconomic status were influencing the sentencing verdicts and accounted for certain differences. According to Berman (2005, 655-678), these faults are what primarily contributed to reforms in the sentencing process of the United States.

Reforms and recidivism

According to United States' Bureau of Justice, recidivism has been described as the act of a former offender repeating a crime after they have been suffered the consequences of a former crime and also after they have been trained to drop these criminal acts. However for an act to be counted as recidivism there must be a voluntary disclosure of arrest and conviction.

Statistics show that 39% of female offenders and 53% of male offenders have been sentenced again. The recidivism rate for prisoners released within a year is nearly forty four percent and this figure is reportedly set to rise to almost sixty seven percent within 3 years of being released from prison. Historically, both Andrews and Bonta (1994, 176-189) laments that these figures have been on a rise despite the implementation of the modern sentencing reforms.

Federal vs. State sentencing process

When drawing out a difference between the federal and state sentencing, Andrews and Bonta (1994, 234-245). noted that in an instances where the both the federal and state sentences are imposed on an offender the constitution of United States of America requires that the sentence imposed by the sovereign with primary jurisdiction is served first. However it is important to note that both the federal and state sentences can run concurrently since the law has made it clear that serving a sentence is not dependant on the order of which the sentence were issued.