CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

The trend in the United States is toward mandatory sentencing for most criminal offenses. Include the following in your initial post:

a.Define mandatory sentencing.

b.Discuss the pros and cons of mandatory sentencing.

c.Provide your opinion of whether or not you agree with mandatory sentencing provisions.

d.Examine whether or not courts should view each case based on its own facts, or whether or not equal justice can only be achieved through mandatory minimum sentencing.

THE ASSIGNMENT ABOVE IS COMPLETE YOUR NEXT ASSIGNMENT IS TO:

Respond to at least two of your classmates’ posts… 200 WORDS EACH….TWO RESPONSES…EQUALS 400 WORDS TOTAL….

WHILE RESPONDING TO THE STUDENT’S FEEDBACK YOU MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS…

Focus upon the fairness of treating everyone the same, regardless of the circumstances which brought them to the sentencing before a court.

Question the validity of a “one size fits all” criminal justice sentencing scheme.

Remember; do not merely agree with your classmates without additional information. A substantive response advances the discussion in a meaningful way; merely agreeing with your classmates is not a substantive response….

First Student Response from Barbara Hampton

Some criminal statutes provide for mandatory sentences or fines. If a defendant is convicted for an offense in which there is a mandatory minimum, the judge must impose at least that amount of punishment, but many opponents say this contributes to the overcrowding in our nation’s prisons (Wright, 2013). A planned sentencing design, clearly mandates punishments for specific offences, or for habitual offenders that are convicted of a sequence of crimes. Mandatory sentencing is different from presumptive sentencing in that it allows for the limited and least amount of judicial discretion, within the range of the published guidelines, established by the Texas Legislature. Some of these mandatory sentencing laws do require modest prison terms, while others have a much more far-reaching affect, such as the “three-strike” laws (Schmalleger, 2011).

Pros…

Mandatory sentencing can be used as a deterrent against future crimes. Potential offenders are aware of the kind of sentence they will face if they are arrested, and are likely to think about the consequences, before they actually commit the crime. It is one of the most effective ways of preventing recidivism. Pressure for a harsher legal system is becoming more and more popular; to increase the length of the sentencing for recidivism would help to restore faith in the judicial system and encourage the reporting of all crimes, even relatively minor ones. Mandatory sentencing will help to free up the log jam of paper work in the judicial court system and increasing their efficiency by getting rid of the drawn-out and expensive “pre-sentencing reports (Kinnear, 2011).”

Cons…

Some studies have shown that the length of the punishment is irrelevant in mandatory sentencing, especially to offenders that believe they will not get caught. The focus should be upon increasing the numbers and the effectiveness of law enforcement, to show the flag so to speak. Mandatory sentencing removes any possibility of judicial discretion: the punishment should fit the crime. Each case differs enormously in the details of the crime, the circumstances and the criminal history of the convicted offender. The risk of recidivism and the possibilities, or lack of rehabilitation, should be considered in sentencing. The chances of recidivism are hugely increased when an individual comes into contact with other members of the prison population. Judges must have the authority to weigh all these complex issues carefully in determining a fair and balanced sentence. Previous offences have already been punished, and can be taken into account by the judge during sentencing. “Harsher mandatory sentences do not reduce crime rates, but simply impact disproportionately on minority groups (Kinnear, 2011).”

Second Student Response from Edward Champagne

Define mandatory sentencing.

Mandatory sentencing is sentencing that is universal across the board if a case fulfills certain characteristics decided upon by the jurisdiction under which the case is being heard. Different jurisdictions such as states or federals may have different sentences, however if a case shares the characteristics under which the criteria for which mandatory sentencing is applicable, than the mandatory sentence would be imposed.

Discuss the pros and cons of mandatory sentencing.

Perhaps the biggest pro of this situation is that there is a very clear “line in the sand“ which demonstrates there will be absolutely no tolerance towards certain behavior. To me this is reminiscent of the code of Hammurabi in that it is very straight forward and direct. There is a cause and effect approach that even a young child would be able to understand.

The biggest con to this situation is that it could be violated quite easily. Manipulation has already happened in that although this may be a great idea for serious crimes, the idea for mandatory could trickle down to minor crimes in which a violation of the intention could happen. Although this seemed just for people who had committed three very serious crimes, the law was more commonly used to harshly sentence people who committed only minor crimes. (Wright, 2013)

Provide your opinion of whether or not you agree with mandatory sentencing provisions.

I agree whole heartedly with the philosophy of mandatory sentencing. I feel as though we as a society need to draw “lines in the sand” so that there is absolutely no misunderstanding as to what will happen to those who break the law. I feel that by having a direct, cause and effect approach to serious crimes that we could lower crime rates quite a bit. I feel this could be very effective for felony crimes or violent crimes, however in regards to minor crimes I feel as though it causes more overcrowding and essentially creates a bit of a hassle. To me someone who kills out of cold blood is much more dangerous than someone who chooses to smoke pot so I feel as though mandatory sentencing if used appropriately could be used a lot better in regards to the big fish so to say.

Examine whether or not courts should view each case based on its own facts, or whether or not equal justice can only be achieved through mandatory minimum sentencing.

I feel as though mandatory minimum sentencing wouldn’t be the end of the world but that it should only be utilized on or after the second offense of the same nature and that this aspect would be better used for the not so serious crimes. For example, if I were selling alcohol to minors, and it were my first offense, I should have the opportunity to have my past reviewed and to learn from my actions. I feel as though a judge should be able to have leniency if I demonstrate regret for my decisions and that the judge feels as though a lesser verdict be rendered. If I continued down the wrong path of life however I believe that a mandatory minimum sentence should be used because obviously I had very little regret or remorse for my previous actions.