Sentencing

Sentencing




1































Sentencing
Strayer University
Professor – Zara Sette
Assignment #3
LEG 320
Online Summer 2012
August 15, 2012
Felicia McCaw
Sentencing
2

ABSTRACT


Sentencing in the United States is governed by the legalistic process of the judicial system to ensure fair rendering of judgment. Utilizing philosophical principles the court and legal system work co-currently to mete out appropriate punishments. Based on and supportive of the philosophical principles there are six theories (Retribution, Deterrence, Denunciation, Incapacitation, Rehabilitation, Reparation) utilized to impose rights of retribution, to halt and act as deterrence of criminal acts, supportive acts of society to forbid and sever and not withhold judgment and apply denunciation as an affront to both social and legalistic norms, further serve as an act to render incapacitation and fulfill protection of the public and society, supportive actions to fulfill the legal system to impose, render and serve as corrective rehabilitation to all offenders who have done acts of criminality and lastly to provide reparation to repay the victimized and the affective changes in the community and ripples of negative behavioral changes to be stalled and corrected.















Sentencing
3

In the United States of America the overall legalistic process of the judicial system is to allow fair relayence of judgment for acts of criminality done. A sentence explained is the final explicit act of a judge ruled process which is symbolic of this country as a true measure of punishment. Sentencing can entail a decree of imprisonment, fines and or other acts of restrictives (punishments) against an alleged perpetrator of a crime who has been found guilty.
A perpetrator of a crime(s) who has been found guilty of one or several crimes will be imprisoned based on the nature and severity of the crime as well as being incarcerated to serve a consecutive sentence and concurrent sentence if found guilty of committing more than one crime. As a judgment for sentencing is being established the possibility of a sentence being adjusted (mitigated) depends on circumstances and evidence presented. Statutes are provided to specify the range of penalties that are imposed for various offenses and based on offenses sentencing guidelines regulate what punishments will be distributed based within ranges set and the offense done and the perpetrator’s characteristics. Further prosecutors have the right to ask for sentence definition and punishable times against the offender based on rights to charge.
Sentencing is based on philosophical principles that are utilized by the court and legal systems concurrently to mete out appropriate punishments. Based on and supportive of the philosophical principles there are six theories (Retribution, Deterrence, Denunciation, Incapacitation, Rehabilitation, Reparation) utilized to impose rights of retribution, to halt and act as deterrence of criminal acts, supportive acts of society to forbid and sever and not withhold judgment and apply denunciation as an affront to both social and legalistic norms, further serve as an act to render incapacitation and fulfill protection of the public and society, supportive actions to fulfill the legal system to impose, render and serve as corrective rehabilitation to all
Sentencing
4

offenders who have done acts of criminality and lastly to provide reparation to repay the victimized and the affective changes in the community and ripples of negative behavioral changes to be stalled and corrected.
The process of sentencing or the effecting deciding factor of relaying a punishment is done after the analyzed conduct and evidential facts have been heard, cross-examined and based on whether the conduct has been proven detrimental, harmful, conflictive of legalistic norms and statutes the sentence can be established but with the option of both parties (prosecutor attorney and defense attorney) to resist and submit appeal and rephrase request for degree of punishment to be determined.
Because of the option to hold proportionality in reference to criminal sentencing this allows objective evaluations of sentencing for criminal acts and appropriate punishment. The ability to evaluate the criminal sentencing of the constitutionality of a punishment is allowable and challengeable because of the proportionality principle. Per Case Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) the proportionality principle was enacted, analyzed and allowed to be viewed with abstraction and the gravity of offense, severity of punishment and viewing of imposition of sentences imposed for crimes in other jurisdictions the court has on occasion intervened and struck down punishments as inherently of disproportionate degrees and decreed cruel and unusual when imposed for certain crimes or categories of crimes.
During sentencing and the levels of fairness which is the nature of proportionality distributing of sentencing in regard to three groups of offenders prohibit the death penalty from being imposed. One of the groups that are expressly protected by the Eighth Amendment are
Sentencing
5

those who suffer mental illness and as supported by the Supreme Court in the Case of Ford v. Wainwright that acts of cruelty would be exhibited to execute a person whose mental state has no capacity to understand or have knowledge of capital punishment. Another group of people who are protected under the Eighth Amendment are people who suffer from mental retardation and continual acts of protection have been passed (Senate Bill 1551) to set regulations to prove retardation and waive the punishment of the death penalty. The last group that are deemed victimized by the legalistic and judicial system are youth under the age of 18 years of age. The Supreme Court ruled March 1, 2005 upholding and support of the constitution that the execution of convicted killers under the age of 18 were exhibited to unconstitutionally cruel penal punishments.
During the process of sentencing the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which is part of the U.S. Bills of Rights serves as a procedural protective which mandates that criminal prosecutions are expediently done publically with an impartial jury the state and district where the crime or criminality act was performed and by due process sentencing is allowed.
As pertains to sentencing the felony murder is a legalistic term or doctrine utilized in common jurisdiction of law that explains and broadens views of the criminal act of murder in two methods. One of the methods of murder occurs when an offender kills accidently without deliberate intent to kill in the process of committing a felony and as such the charge which was murder is relegated to manslaughter. Secondly, as per sentencing allows and based on the rule of statute any participant involved in such a felony is criminally liable for any inadvertently caused deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony (which is murder by accident but not by
Sentencing
6

deliberate deed) and is respectively held as a statute in 46 states in the United States and the laws of addressing as consistent and regulated by statute of legalistic policy.
As sentencing has established guidelines that are restricted by criminal offenses and allow governing and designating of time-frames for allocated periods of incarceration to be served. Deterrence and restrictives of criminal behavior is the goal for the United States legalistic and judicial system to halt acts of criminality and alter behavioral patterns ingrained from youth to adulthood.












REFERENCES

Gardner, T.J., & Anderson, T.M., (2012). Criminal Law. (11th Edition). Mason: Cengage Learning.
(Gardner & Anderson, 2012)
Wikipedia. Sentence (law). Retrieved August 15, 2012, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(law)
Wikipedia. Felony Murder Rule. Retrieved August 15, 2012, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
Wikipedia. Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Retrieved August 4, 2012, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth _Amendment _to_the_United_States Constitution
Joyner, J. (2005). Supreme Court Overrules Death Penalty for Minors. Outside the Beltway. Retrieved August 15, 2012, from
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/my_way_news/
Slobogin, C. Mental Illness and the death penalty. Retrieved August 15, 2012, from
http://www.boalt.org/CCLR/v1/v1slobogintext.htm
Reynolds, D. (2001, May 15). Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty in the U.S.A. Ragged Edge Online.
Retrieved from http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/extra/deathrow051501.htm
Kannai, R. Preserving Proportionality in Sentencing: Constitutional or Criminal Issue.
Retrieved August 15, 2012, from
http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/2004/Kannai.pdf