Role of Sentencing Philosophies
Sentencing philosophies have evolved over time. As these philosophies have evolved, so have correctional practices to accommodate the various types of punishment imposed upon those convicted of criminal offenses.
Indeterminate sentencing started losing favor in 1970s for a number of reasons. Indeterminate sentencing allowed parole officers and judges to be too lenient in the way they handle convicted criminals at the expense of the safety of the public. When violent offenders receive lenient treatments, the public is more likely to be infuriated since these criminals are prone to commit more heinous crimes. Additionally, indeterminate sentencing allows for the application of criminal punishments in an uneven manner for similar offenders and offences. This sentencing disparity was demonstrated by a 1977 action by the judges of the Virginia state district court. When 47 judges were given five legal cases with identical descriptions, they all agree on each case’s verdict, but administered different sentences ( Berman, 2005).
Sentencing guidelines
There have been concerns over high rates of crime and rehabilitative model that has failed to act as a correctional facility. As a result, the federal government has decided to correct its correctional facility system. In the year 1984, Congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act that included the Sentencing Reform Act. The Sentencing Reform Act introduced key changes in parole and sentencing policies. It introduced definite imprisonment terms in place of indeterminate sentences. The previously early releases by parole were terminated and in their place came supervised release. The new sentencing guidelines reject the model of rehabilitation that assumed that the sentence lengths can be determined by the offenders’ rehabilitative capacity. Judges’ wide and arbitrary indeterminate sentences were replaced with the U.S Sentencing Commission’s determinate sentencing guidelines. This system of sentencing took effect from 1st November 1987. This means that those offenders who committed their crime after or on the effected date are not qualified for parole and administered under the system of determinate sentencing. The sentencing guidelines required offenders who are sentenced in prison to serve for not less than 85 percent of their sentences. However, based on their good behavior, there is a possibility of releasing the offenders for the 15 percent remainder of their sentence. Traditionally, prior to the introduction of determinate sentencing, federal offenders were required to serve only 58 percent of their sentences in prison (Groothuis, 2016).
The sentencing guidelines have been argued to target offenders of high rate penalties as compared to those of offenders with whose criminal histories are less serious. The goal of just deserts provides for sentencing guidelines to put up a strong case in ensuring that punishment’s severity corresponds with the gravity of the crime and the offender’s culpability. The sentencing guidelines range decreases or increases based on the ‘aggravating and mitigating factors that differentiate degrees of harm of different offenses and the varying culpability in each case’ ( Henham, 2003). However, judges may be allowed to depart from these guidelines under restricted circumstances. A common case is where the sentencing guidelines do not account for mitigating and aggravating factors. In this case, the sentencing judges may depart from the maximum or minimum sentences that are already established. Such departures allow judges to custom their sentences in cases where the offered sentencing ranges by sentencing guidelines cannot meet the intention of the guidelines. The sentencing guidelines have had varied effects on the lengths of incarceration (Myers & Talarico, 1987).
References
Berman , D. A. (2005). Distinguishing Offense Conduct and Offender Characteristics in Modern Sentencing Reforms. Stanford Law Review, 58.1, 277-291.
Groothuis, D. R. (2016). Philosophy in seven sentences : a small introduction to a vast topic. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Henham, R. (2003). The Philosophical Foundations of International Sentencing. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 1.1, 64-85.
Myers, M. A., & Talarico, S. M. (1987). The Social Contexts of Criminal Sentencing. New York, NY : Springer New York.
