Prison Term Policy Recommendation Proposal
According to Banks, It is essential that policy makers analyze all the possible options and consequences of the decision as well as consider all the possible moral aspects of the bill with precision before a bill is passed or a policy is made (2009). Banks describes the policymaking process as one that requires (1) predicting certain future conditions assuming an uninterrupted flow of events,” (2) “projecting the future implications of a particular course of action,” (3) “identifying a preferred outcome from a set of available choices, generating a program or policy that will result in the preferred outcome,” and (4) “creating an adequate monitoring system” (2009). Armed robbery can be committed by several means and in many forms. The various kinds of weapons used, the kind of mental and physical abuse inflected upon the victims, whether or not any person is killed or mortally injured can make the enormity of the crime less or more intense. To give an example, the simplest form of armed robbery is purse snatching. This paper considers a bill that proposes to double the maximum prison term of anyone convicted of armed robbery in order to achieve the objective of reducing the crime rate. It has been found that the proposal is indeed popular with the voters, but the paper is written from a criminologist advisor’s point of view, which considers if the bill from all ethical and consequential aspects. The author does not advocate the doubling the prison term for armed robbery.
If we consider the United States law for the punishment awarded for armed robbery, according to the 2006 Massachusetts Code, Chapter 265, Section 17, the term of imprisonment can be anywhere between 5 to 15 years or even more (Justia US Law). Let us consider the case of an armed robbery where the offender is a man aged 24 years. The offender has used a gun to rob a bank van carrying a large sum of money. In the process of committing the robbery, one of the two guards was grievously injured in the skirmish with the offender. The offender, who came from a lower stratum of the society, was later captured and it was found that he had dropped out of school and had always indulged in delinquent behavior. In accordance to the Massachusetts Code, he was imprisoned for 13 years. The judgment was carried out amidst high media focus on the case. However, if the above-mentioned bill is passed, his imprisonment period would be 26 years. In another case, a robbery took place in a jewelry store and the offender was found to be a young man of 22 years, but hailing from a respectable family. He committed the robbery as he was unable to acquire the place in life he aspired for. The guard of the jewelry shop was badly injured; however, in view of the offender’s past—he had a good record of being a good youngster—he was awarded 3 years imprisonment, which if the bill were passed would become 6 years.
This situation is somewhat similar to sociologist William J. Chambliss’ account of two teenage delinquent groups that were from high (H) and low (L) strata of the society (1978). Group H’s behavior was often not noticed in context to their position in the society and the fact that they were able to get good grade, while the situation with group L was exactly the opposite. Thus, it is possible that the society is biased toward the less fortunate. In this case, the sentence awarded in the first case seems highly unfair, especially when compared to the second case. Furthermore, the current term for armed robbery already seems to be unfair as the long imprisonment might be correct for crimes such as murder, but not robbery where no person is hurt, and instead of long imprisonment terms, the offenders would be better members of the society with proper rehabilitation schemes.
It has been said that “Over the past three decades the political climate in the United States has increasingly embraced ‘get tough’ policies as the primary focus of a crime control strategy,” however, it stands that these policies could be simply the voters demand and due consideration of the consequences has not been considered (Mauer, King, and Young, 2004). Moreover, if we were to consider the United States, in the Due Process Clause, which is mentioned in the 5th and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, it is pledged that every person’s “life, liberty or property” should be respected and that the federal government should not make any claims on them with no fair trial in the court of law (Walenta, 2010). Nonetheless, this clause is very difficult to meet, and more often not always met, owing to the flexible nature of the law, the applicability of which can change with the judge’s or bench’s influence and understanding of the interpretation. In such cases, the doubling of the sentence would worsen the fates of the offenders.
If we consider the first case, there is thin possibility that the imprisonment of 26 years rather than 13 years would result in forming a better individual for the society. The author of this paper believes that it is more probable that the offender either becomes embittered by his long sentence and this more harmful to the society or he emerges as a dysfunctional individual, unable to thrive in the society. Another factor is the kind of imprisonment conditions, which are often notorious for the deplorable lives the criminals are forced to lead (Mauer, King, and Young, 2004). If the imprisonment conditions are indeed deplorable, it is hardly fair that the offenders’ terms are doubled. Thus, as a criminologist advisor, the author of this paper believes that doubling of the punishment term for armed robbery is not fair.
While the justice system in most countries states that an appropriate and just retribution be rewarded to the victim/s of a crime, such as, the imprisonment of a criminal or offender, it also requires that every suspected offender should receive a fair trial (Bank, 2009). It should be remembered that the process of awarding justice is always the ultimate aim of the judicial system in criminal cases. All the offenders associated and then arrested and prosecuted or defended should receive a fair chance to prove their innocence, and all the law makers, prosecutors, defenders should remember this. In fact, in a country with great degrees of advancement, it is essential that the common people learn to look at the judicial processes in this manner. The doubling of the term for armed robbery is does not seem to bring about any exception benefits to the society, and so, this bill should not be passed.
References
Banks, C. (2009). The Ethics of Criminal Justice Policy Making Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). New York: Sage Publications.
Chambliss, W. J. (1978). Foreword to The Saints and the Roughnecks. Retrieved 19 January 2011 http://alpha.fdu.edu/~peabody/Lexicon/Chambliss,_The_Saints_and_the_Roughnecks.html.
Justia US Law. Retrieved January 19, 2012 http://law.justia.com/codes/massachusetts/2006/gl-pt4-toc/265-17.html.
Mauer, M., King, R.S., and Young, M.C. (May 2004). The Meaning of “Life”: Long Prison Sentences in Context. Washington D.C.: The Sentencing Project.
Walenta, C. U.S Constitution Online. (January 24, 2010). January 19, 2012 http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html.
