Mandatory sentencing guidelines and disparities in U.S. corrections

Punishment in the U.S. Correctional System

IN ITS RIGHTFUL PLACE AND FORM

Punishment in the U.S. Corrections System

Objectives of Punishment

These are to punish the offender, to protect the population from him or her, and to rehabilitate him or her (eNotes, 2013; Law Link, 2003). The first goal of punishment is theoretically intended to discourage or deter a repeat of the offense and a demonstration of why it should be avoided. The most common example of punishment is incarceration. Others are the death penalty and lesser penalties, such as probation. The second goal of the correctional system next to punishing the offender is to insure the protection of society from criminals. This is carried out by policing the streets and separating criminals through imprisonment to prevent them from repeating or performing more crimes. And the third objective is the rehabilitation of the offender so that he or she can re-join society to be a functional member again. He or she focuses from being a social cost to a contributing member (Law Link, eNotes).

Determinate and Indeterminate Sentencing

Determinate sentencing fixes confinement for a definite or minimum period, as specified by statute (Rank, 2012). Determinate statutes became popular throughout the country in the 80s out of public clamor for stringent laws to curb crime. Congress and the States came up with these statutes from the belief that punishment deters crime. Hence, specific sentences were evolved for certain crimes or repeat offenses (Rank).

Determinate sentencing has been found to reduce sentencing disparity but it also creates flexibility and cost problems (Shepherd, 2002). It prevents judges and officials from adjusting penalties in keeping the proportion between crime and punishment. It also tends to lengthen prison sentences and stays, which in turn increase costs in incarceration. Those who favor it argue that the costs are compensated by crime reduction through rehabilitation, incapacitation, and deterrence. But rehabilitation and incapacitation produce only limited benefits. Keeping offenders behind bars for long periods clearly proves that criminal rehabilitation is impossible. It also results in unfair sentencing and legal manipulation of the judicial system, which defeat the intent of the legislature. There are mitigating circumstances, which this type sentencing does not consider. A seasoned drug dealer convicted with 30 lbs of heroin should not be imposed the same sentence as a first-time user who is caught with less than 5 oz of a dangerous drug. Other disadvantages are the overwhelming increase in prison population, the distortion of rulings and a misinterpretation of complex determinate sentencing laws (Shepherd).

Indeterminate Sentencing imposes the minimum imprisonment an offender must service before he can become eligible for release by the Parole Board (Sentencing Council, 2012). The two types are imprisonment for life and imprisonment for public protection for offenders 18-21 of age (Sentencing Council).

Sentencing is individualized and release is based on circumstances specific to the person (Sentencing Council, 2012). His release depends on the nature of the crime, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, his past criminal history, his conduct while in prison, and proven willingness to be rehabilitated while in prison. An example of the imprisonment for life type is an offender who is sentenced to life imprisonment with the minimum term to be fixed according to the facts of his offense. He has past convictions and poses much risk to the public. An example of the imprisonment for public protection is a sexual or violent offender who is sentenced to life or 10 years or more. He also poses grave risk to the public and a minimum term is set. When he completes this minimum term, the Parole Board decides if he can be released. If he is released, he is given a license, which is recalled when he becomes a public risk again. After 10 years and each year thereafter, he may apply for the cancellation of his license at the discretion of the Parole Board (Sentencing Council.)

Opinion: the Most Appropriate Models of Sentencing

Most suitable alternative models can be derived from probation. These involve a fine and community service with a fixed probation. Offenders may be required to install breath-analyzers in their vehicles that will measure their alcohol intake. They may be made to carry signs, which declare their offense to the community. They may stay at home on house arrest. They may be compelled to undertake and complete alcohol or drug treatment programs. and/or they may be ordered to attend lectures conducted by victims of their crimes. #