Policy making on criminal offenses involves decisions that affect all levels of society. The government is careful about policy making because of the effects it might have in society. Criminal offenders have rights too, which the government is supposed to protect as it makes these policies. It is quite a challenge to determine what constitutes enough punishment for a criminal offender, while upholding the same person’s civil rights. The level of justice afforded to aggrieved parties may not be enough at the end of the day, given the weight of some criminal offences. The function of the state involves serving and protecting all citizens. Criminal offenders are citizens. Policies made therefore have to put into practice the protective detail of a person’s civil rights, whether within or outside the law.
Objectives of the bill to double maximum sentences for armed robbery
Legislature has motioned a bill to double maximum sentence for armed robbery. The bill aims at reducing the time frame in which persons convicted for armed robbery can be pardoned. Currently, a convicted person could be pardoned after serving 30 per cent of their jail time. The rule has seen most offenders being released after spending a considerably short time in prison. The offenders are usually released on account of good behavior and initiative towards corrective measures.
The bill also has the aim of reducing the cost of keeping convicted persons in prisons. With the level of crime on the rise, prisons become full, and the cost of keeping inmates keeps rising (Roberts,2013).The government uses parole of inmates as a way of controlling the escalating costs of keeping people in jail. This bill aims at reducing costs that would allow persons convicted for armed robbery to be kept in prison a while longer. The bill has proposed giving community service sentences to less serious offences and increasing time for armed robbery. The move will ensure space is created.
Goals of the bill
The bill has the goal to reduce the rates at which armed robbery offenders come back to society and commit more crimes. Research has shown that most convicted persons have committed crime again after being pardoned or on completion of their sentence. More than 20 per cent of people charged with armed robbery are second time offenders. The bill aims at keeping them away for a long time to ensure society is rid of such people (Zimring, Hawkins & Kamin,2001).Those pardoned get come into the system as new individuals, only to be drawn back in. There are only a small percentage of people who live better lives after sentencing.
The bill also has the purpose of passing the message that armed robbery is a serious offense that would ensure an offender goes away for a long time. Most offenders are not deterred from the crime because they know there are chances of the knowledge that they will get out.
Punishment should have the same weight as the crime. Armed robbery endangers a victim’s life, and has adverse effects on society. Most victims do not get the justice they deserve. Some of the victims take a long time to recover from the effects of armed robbery and deserve to see justice carried out in a proper way. The bill, therefore, has the goal of ensuring victims are satisfied with the weight of the sentence given. Most people will therefore feel secure and enjoy their right to acquisition of property.
Possible solutions for the bill
The bill has a number of loopholes that need to be addressed if it is going to be passed by legislature. First, the bill should have a clear definition of what constitutes armed robbery and the different degrees involved. Lawyers can argue and win a case if there is a loophole or mischief behind the law. Therefore, is possession of a fire arm during robbery armed robbery when a person does not use it? There should be a clear definition of armed robbery, with or without causing injury and the result of each. The bill should also determine how congestion in courts will be reduced. Offenders take guilty pleas because of the short time they will serve in prison. However, with doubling of sentences, most of them would want to try their luck on a trial. To reduce congestion in the court system would be a challenge because everyone does have a right to fair hearing. The bill should propose court sessions in prisons where offenders are remanded.
Justification for why the bill should be approved or not
Recommendations
The bill is a good effort on the legislature’s part in their attempt to curb crime, and we cannot therefore baptize it as a bad bill. It will help reduce crime if offenders are fearful of the time they will spend in jail. However, I do not believe that is the ultimate solution. Other mechanisms to reduce crime level in society should be looked at. The root of the problem should be established. Why are people engaging in crimes? What is the percentage of school drop outs? Issues on substance abuse also lead to crime involvement. We can increase sentences, but without proper solutions for the cause of the crime, it will not help. In addition, prisons should adopt a more corrective approach towards convicts. Corrective measures should also extend to society. The bill should be approved to help reduce crime, but recommendations on how the crime will be controlled should also be proposed.
References
Roberts, M. A. (2013). A revolution is coming the fourteen international laws of recovery for our infected planet: The global revolution.
Zimring, F. E., Hawkins, G., & Kamin, S. (2001). Punishment and democracy: Three strikes and you're out in California. Oxford: Oxford University Press
