Criminal Justice: Sentencing
Every civil society has it sets of rules, whether written or unwritten. These rules are based on the beliefs, regulations and the virtues valued and upheld within the society. With modern civilization, most nations around the world have constitutions to govern the conduct of its citizens, thereby maintaining law and order. Defying these regulations is termed as criminal offence and is punishable by law. Sentencing of law breakers is therefore meant to play a given role in the society. It also comes with its costs, as discussed below.
According to the Law Reform Commission (2008), most offenders are brought before a court of law. If found guilty for the offence for which they are suspected, they can be sentenced for various purposes which include but are not limited to prevent a similar crime by keeping the offender and others like him from the crime, to safeguard the society from the offender, rehabilitate the offender, to enforce punitive measures on the offender for the unlawful act and make him fully accountable. On top of this, the court may also be intending to acknowledge the harm done to the victim and thereby denounce the offender’s conduct. This paper will look into detail at four major objectives which include deterrence, retribution and denunciation, rehabilitation and incapacitation.
Banks (2004) explains deterrence to be the act of preventing people from carrying out certain activities for fear of negative outcomes. He observes that man’s activities are governed by the pains or the pleasures derived therein. If the degree of pain is comparatively higher than that of pleasure, then the action in question will be avoided. Therefore, by imposing painful measures on an offender, this serves as a warning to others about the consequences of engaging in such an act. The crime is therefore prevented.
Rehabilitation is transformation of the wrong-doer by helping him to exhibit the kind of conduct that is socially acceptable. Incapacitation is the inhibiting of the undesirable behavior, hence putting the individual in such a state that he cannot perform the unlawful act again once he is re-incorporated into the society (Law Reform Commission, 2008). This objective is based on the assumption that crime’s causative agents can be positively identified. Identification is followed by treatment so as to completely eliminate the behavior. The Trade Practices Act of 1974 shows that the federal law allows a court of law to put organizational offenders under probation. Such an individual is barred from exhibiting the wrong behavior for the specified period of the probation.
Retribution and denunciation are also major objectives. Denunciation is quite gross as it aims at passing a strong message that the society will by no means tolerate the kind of behavior shown by the individual. It is occasionally termed as a subset of retribution where the society expresses its degree of dislike for the offence (Banks, 2004). Retribution calls for the biblical argument of ‘an eye for an eye’, denoting that an offender deserves wholly deserves the punishment that he receives. It is based on the lex talionis principle where the offender receives a similar treatment as the one he imposed on the victim. This mode of punishment is however controversial, since it is unclear whether some cases can fall under the lex talionis rule. Such are case of rape where the question arises as to whether the offender should be raped. However, supporters of this objective believe that it is right for criminals to be hated. As such, the punitive measures should be so tough as to bring out the hatred. On the other hand , it would justify the community’s quest for a natural and healthy sentiment (Banks, 2004).
All the above measures are aimed at creating peaceful co-existence and an orderly society. However, during the implementation of the sentences passed on the offenders, the society is affected in one way or another. As PEW Charitable Trust (2011) observes, the American laws have seen so many offenders put behind bars in the past few decades that the size and cost of the prison system has become such a burden on the taxpayers. In an unfortunate turn though, recidivism rates are still high and the public has to continually deal with criminal activities. The trust therefore echoes the Public Safety Performance Project which aims at assisting the states in collection and analysis of data so as to know who and who should not be in prison, and for how long. It will also help states to understand its current policies and practices in dealing with crime and perform comparative analysis with other states. Lastly the project encourages states to utilize accurate research in making reforms aimed at annihilating crime and recidivism (PEW Charitable Trust, 2011).
McKenzie (2001) shares a similar idea. She observes that the costs of maintaining the correctional facilities as of 2001 were much greater than the cost of community supervision. This was due to the skyrocketing number of people being sent to these facilities. As she explains, the cost incurred by state governments in 1994 was $21.27 billion, up from $ 4.26 billion in 1980. McKenzie (2001) further observes that the high rates of incarceration have led to unintended consequences to the community. These have resulted in great decline in the labor force, involvement in drug trade and a sharp rise in the number of female-headed households.
In conclusion, the correctional facilities and the sentences handed to offenders are all in the good will of the society. There are different objectives as to why the sentences have to be passed. However, as seen from the discussion above, the costs of implementing these measures maybe too much for the community to bear. It is therefore the responsibility of the federal and state governments to ensure that they impose the best measures in order to achieve an orderly community without exerting much pressure on the people.
References
Banks. (2004). The Purpose of Criminal Punishment. Retrieved on 1st Nov. 2011 from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/5144_Banks_II_Proof_Chapter_5.pdf
Law Reform Commission. (2008). Report 102 (2003) – Sentencing: Corporate Offenders. Retrieved on 1st Nov. 2011 from http://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/r102chp03
Mackenzie, D.L. (2001). Sentencing and Corrections in the 21st Century: Setting the Stage for the Future. Retrieved on 1st Nov. 2011 from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/189106-2.pdf
The PEW Charitable Trust. (2011). Sentencing and Corrections. Retrieved on 1st Nov. 2011 from http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_detail.aspx?id=74
