Over a long period of time, the federal government has had struggles in instituting the rules and guidelines on matters of sentencing. This is so because of the sensitivity of the judicial sentencing authority especially following the Reform Act of 1984 which came as a replacement to the former traditional sentencing policy. The Reform Act of 1984 is a more strict authority which is proscribed by the enactment of mandatory guidelines to deal with sentencing. There also arose the limitation brought by the Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutional grounds with the exercise of mandatory guideline provided for in the sentencing Reform Act. This essay brings into the light the significance changes regarding the guidelines that have been instituted when it comes to sentencing at both the state and federal levels as Reforms.
The sentencing Reform Act has resulted into the enactment of other forms of sentences by doing away the restrictions of the earlier reforms. The other roles have been left to the Department of Justice and members of congress who have called for legislation that will result in limiting the sentencing discretions . The issue of youth sentencing has raised many alarms among the groups involved. The focus has been emphasized by the guidelines council which was established under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003). An in-depth understanding of these guidelines is of great value to those professionals and practitioners in the youth justice system.
The Guidelines System
All the guidelines that apply to sentencing are aimed purely to improve on the effectiveness and consistency in all the courts and the states which in turn will result to more public confidence at the same time enhance fairness and equity . Quite a number of changes have taken place in the statutory guidelines also in penal codes in which the system gives powers to the presiding judge. The strict guidelines are as a result of the many changes in the judicial composition . It always results in the enactment of custodial sentences as well as in the specific offences or for the case of a repeated offence by the same offender. However, that is not always the case since in the case where the guidelines are extremely rigid and formulated in rigid way, the resulting effect will be to determine the sentence by simply observing the specific offence. In other cases, judicial precedent will be applicable especially in the case of a court of a lower rank.
Other instances are where the reduction of custodial sentences are analyzed and fully stipulated in the Reforms Act. This can also be affected by the political turmoil in the prevailing period. There is a close interrelationship between the state and the SGC and also the SAP. The two gives advice on the sitting panel which in turn formulates and implements their decisions in terms of the sentencing rules. It is the responsibility for the SGC entrusted with structural changes in government departments during the year2007. The ministry of Justice has also been working closely with the Law reforms body to see to it that the changes are fully implemented. The ministry connects with the house of congress, where the parliament monitors all the guidelines especially on draft constitution .
The SGC is composed of the following members:- the Lord Chief Justice who chairs all the deliberations and he/she is charged with the role of appointing the other seven members. Among them should include seven judicial members and four non judicial members. There are specific criteria used to qualify a member into the composition. Among the persons who qualify in the sitting are:- Lord justice of Appeal, a judge of caliber of the High court, also in the list is a judge of the caliber of the District level. The list is not exclusive of the circuit judge. The persons eligible to be non-judicial members must be experienced in policing, criminal prosecution, criminal defense or the promotion of the welfare of victims ofcrime. Each of these four areas of expertise must be represented (and can also include the Director of Public Prosecutions. . The SGC produces the guidelines and also allocates guidelines. These guidelines that directs are defined as guidelines relating to the sentencing of offenders, which may be general in nature or limited to aparticular category of offence or offender .
Disparities in the Judicial System
There is a clear evidence of the presence of racial disparities in our judicial systems in all the stages of the rulings . We cannot overlook the consequences of these racial prejudices in the formulation and implementation of both the federal and state laws relating to sentencing. The result negative effects is always borne by the minority defendants who have no impact in a court proceeding. The justice system should try and address the issue which might turn to be detrimental in the coming future years . There is also growing contribution of the sentencing guidelines to the criminal act trends.
This is mostly taking place in the in the new federal system of sentencing and also in the new system of application of rule of law. Some of the new laws proposed for enaction are home confinement with electronic monitoring. This has led to the tremendous growth in the rehabilitation of the youth and prevailing order at all the systems of government.
There have also been changes in the length of imprisonment for various types. This has also been echoed as a major step by the justice system and highly advocated by many. The length of time I prison will be determined by the age of the offender and also the type of the offence committed. The justice department has also stipulated clearly the different types of crimes and the accompanying penalty . The principal decision always lie with the panel of the hearing judges as long as it is not beyond the constitutional law. All these stipulations are made in line with the international governing legal systems so as to bring harmony in the justice systems.
Certainty in Sentencing in the United States.
Various precaution measures have been laid down in the last couple of years. This is as a result of the reforms in the all the systems of government. Currently, the punishment for almost all serious crimes is a term of imprisonment, but prisons were not always the dominant form of punishment. During the early times of colonization, some of the methods of reprimanding law breakers were fines and whipping among others. The moments changed immediately after the attainment of independence where the system of justice was changed through reforms. There was the introduction of capital punishment as a way of punishing serious law offenders. The reforms were initiated by a group of legislators who saw it through the whole process of formulation and implementation. As the years go by, many changes have taken place as a result of the many revolutions that have taken place in the government . The other major change that has taken place is the increase in the number of federal prisons. There has also been emphasis on the construction of many rehabilitation centers.
Conclusion
The starting point for sentencing is the offense . The court should consider the offender’s responsibility in committing a crime when they are analyzing the extent of any crime. This should also be the basis of pointing out the imprisonment time.
The youth who are found on the wrong side of law should be rehabilitated to reduce their chances of future repeating the crimes. The seriousness of the crime committed should be the factor to determine the kind of restrictions on one’s freedom. The department of justice should also work closely with the Federal and State law governing bodies to bring harmony in all the systems of government. The sentencing of law breakers below 18 years, the court will determine the main reason for the offense and also should address the issue of youth justice system. This is aimed at the prevention of committing offense to the young ones. The other consideration that should be put into place is the statutory provisions. When a court is determining the sentencing of a young law breaker, it must consider the international governing laws in terms of child imprisonment. The aim of this is to avoid contravening the laws relating to young life sentencing. Most of the times, the justice system should consider rehabilitation of the young offenders rather than putting them into prison. This is so because, in the rehabilitation centers, the youth will gain life-sustaining skills as they undergo the process of being reinstated back to the society.
References:
M., M. R., & Sonja, B. S. (January 15, 2012). Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Charging and its Sentencing Consequences. University of Michigan Law & Economics Working Paper.
Roger, W., Haines, j., & AL, E. (2006). Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Thomson West.
Thomas, W., & Hutchison, E. A. (2006). Federal sentencing Law and Practice. West Publishing.
