The effects of punishment and sentencing

Criminal Justice Issues -- Sentencing

Fundamental Sentencing Philosophies:

In the American criminal justice system, there are three primary purposes of criminal sentencing: retribution (or punishment), deterrence, and rehabilitation (Schmalleger, 2007). Additionally, incarceration is also intended to remove offenders from society to protect others from victimization, whereas so-called "alternative" sentencing also incorporates a fourth purpose: victim compensation (Schmalleger, 2007). In many cases, specific criminal offenses may be eligible for different sentences emphasizing one or more elements of those primary purposes. In that regard, various arguments suggest that one perspective or the other is more beneficial to society.

The argument in favor of emphasizing punishment over rehabilitation is that the main function of penal law in general is precisely consistent with its name: to punish criminal conduct. Certainly, that is not in doubt; however, an exclusive focus on punishment may not be the most beneficial approach from a societal perspective, because the vast majority of criminal offenders are eventually returned to society (Dershowitz, 2002). The recognition of the need to minimize criminal recidivism among ex-offenders influences sentencing by increased efforts designed to provide behavioral counseling, education, and vocational training even within the context of punitive sentences.

Factors Considered in Sentencing Decisions:

The most significant factors considered in criminal sentencing decisions are whether the criminal offense at issue is violent or nonviolent and whether the criminal conduct represents an isolated instance or a pattern of repeated behavior on the part of the offender (Schmalleger, 2007). Within that general framework, there are those who emphasize the relevance of the distinction between violent and nonviolent crimes and those who emphasize patterns of criminality instead. In principle, the former position suggests that even first-time violent offenders deserve more harsh punishment than repeat nonviolent offenders; the latter position suggests that long-term behavioral tendencies are more predictive of future conduct than the nature of specific crimes that represent isolated instances in the life of offenders.

Both positions have merit and generally, the most appropriate perspective is an intermediate position that recognizes the relevance of both considerations. That perspective influences modern sentencing policies and decisions by incorporating both the nature of offenses and the criminal history of the offender on a case by case basis.

Capital Punishment Issues: