Ethical Dilemmas Surrounding Sentencing the UK
Student Name
Institution of Affiliation
Ethical Dilemmas Surrounding Sentencing in the UK
Punishment that is ordered by the court during a criminal procedure by a preceding judge is referred to as a sentence. There are many forms that a sentence could take which include and not limited to fines, incarceration, and any other punishment the judge may legally find suitable against an offender depending on the nature of the crime they committed. In the United Kingdom, justice is both a human rights and law reform organization that is devoted to the protection and preservation of human rights. The criminal justice system is devoted to the delivery of criminal justice across the land. The CJ, together with the police, the courts, the crown prosecution, the national offender management service, and the youth justice board, efforts towards reducing crime are made. In England and Wales, the legal system that is administered by the courts is referred to as the English law and it is used to make a ruling on both civil and criminal matters.
When sentencing an offender, the magistrate or the ruling judge is governed by the law on the steps to take before making any decisions. Before offering a sentence, he or she must take into considerations the impact the sentence will make to avoid contradictions and unexpected consequences. The judge must consider the need to do the following; punishing the offender which I the main aim of the sentence. Secondly, the judge should look into whether the sentence will protect the public. For example, sentencing an offender guilty of multiple counts of murder into lifetime imprisonment will make the public feel more secure and safe. Thirdly, the judge should ensure that the sentence will make the offender make up for their crime. Having an offender in prison is enough to get them to make up for their crime, however, there are cases when imprisonment may cause the offender to engage in intense criminal activities. Judges have therefore to be very careful on the incarceration program they send an offender to. Fourthly, the sentence should have the ability to change the behavior of the offender (Tonri, 2014). For example, taking an offender who is a drug addict into a drug rehabilitation center and at the same time have them serving at community service will reform the offender and change their behavior. Lastly, the sentence must be able to cut crime in future, as mentioned, imprisonment may not always be an option since most inmates that have been release relapse into crime within three years after they have been set free. Judges should, therefore, take time to go through the most viable alternatives to imprisonment before making a final verdict in order to cut crime in the future.
False material statements are the most common ethical issues that face the defense counsel. A defendant who chooses to give false statements regarding their identity such as names may cause serious sentencing implications. The offense level of the may be multiplied for the obstruction of justice which is not allowed within the court proceeding. An attorney representing a defendant should immediately withdraw from a case and stop further involvement when he or she learns that the defendant had provided false information and that he or she is unwilling to present the truth. The attorney has an option of persuading the defendant to offer the truth failure to which the attorney should withdraw to avoid being a perpetrator to the fraud (Police.UK.). Even though is a confidentiality agreement between an attorney and the client, in the case of falsehood, the attorney should be able to present the false material before the court if the client is unwilling to take responsibility of the action. It is against the work ethics within the criminal justice system for a practitioner of law to be the same person obstructing justice and may result in the attorney being incriminated. When the court is informed of the false statement at the time of sentencing, higher charges and sentencing may be placed unlike when the matter was reported at the beginning of the court proceedings.
Case study
In 2017, a 35-year old woman from Derbyshire was sentenced to jail after providing a false alibi for her boyfriend. The boyfriend had been accused of armed robbery in a jewelry shop in Birmingham making away with 39,000 Euros. He was also accused of assaulting the owner of the shop who was about 70 years old. The woman named Lisa Sudale lied that she had been with her partner at her home in Swadlincote at the time of the robbery. According to later evidence, Sudale had called her boyfriend via phone at the same time she had claimed that they had been together. According to the records by the hotel, the boyfriend had not been staying there but was staying elsewhere. Due to giving a false statement which could have possibly led to the obstruction of justice, Sudale was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Giving her a prison term was meant to provide protection to the judicial process against anyone that was bent on undermining the law (GOV.UK., 2017).
Disclosure on plea agreements that are relevant to the sentencing must be maintained by both the prosecutors and the defense counsel. The main reason for the disclosure is to avoid cases of corruption and/or to ensure that the guilty plea by a defendant is voluntary. Providing a false response regarding a plea agreement is considered unethical and therefore prosecutors have a mandate to reveal each of the terms underlying a plea of agreement even when the court has not requested for such or similar information. Fact bargaining is a component of the plea bargaining that involves the defense and the prosecution entering into mutual agreements based on facts (Blume, & Helm, 2014). The facts have a very great impact on the sentence that the defendant is too be given by the court based on their mandatory minimum statutory provision. The sentencing guidelines also have an influence on the nature of the sentence that a defendant will be given such as the amount of damage that was encountered during a crime. In a case like the possession of illegal weapons, making a court responsible for declaring a sentence believe that the defendant had fewer weapons that alleged through a false plea agreement is considered to be an ethical violation (Bandyopadhyay, 2013). A judge should never be involved in discussions regarding a particular plea and neither should the judge be requested to give an opinion on the level of sentence a defendant will be given depending on the nature of the plea. The discussion by the two parties regarding a plea must be recorded in the form of writing where the invitation to the discussions should be in the form of a letter. A jointly written submission on the plea agreement should be forwarded to the court in the form of a sentence.
According to the UK law, a sentence declaring imprisonment of a defendant should never be passed unless he or she is legally represented in court. For a defendant to be considered legally represented, he or she must have the Helpance of a counsel to represent them in the court proceedings when found guilty and before any sentence is passed (Ashworth, 2017). Determining the seriousness of an offense is a requirement before passing any sentence. The court has a duty to determine whether the accused is capable of committing a particular offense or to cause any harm. It is at this point that the court determines whether the offender was in the right mental state or not. Determining on the assessment of the mental status of the offender, a judge may decide on the level of sentencing to give the defendant. In many cases, defendants that are found to have mental health problem are sentenced to mental health facilities while those with drug addiction problem are sentenced to drug rehabilitation centers. In would be unethical for a judge or a magistrate to sentence a mentally ill defendant to prison. Prisons are known to have unconducive environments characterized by violence and healthcare problems which would only worsen the mental condition of a defendant. As stated earlier, while sentencing a defendant, the judge should consider the welfare of the defendant and only give sentences that will promote a change of behavior. It is therefore ethical that a mentally ill patient be referred to a conducive environment that will enhance their well-being while at the same time reforming them for assimilation back into the society to promote public safety.
A court should never pass a community sentence on an offender unless under some special circumstances that show that offense was serious enough for such judgment. A youth rehabilitation order among the special circumstances that warrant a community sentence. It is more ethical for a court to offer an offender under the age of 18 years of community service instead of an imprisonment sentence (Andersen, 2015). The argument is still based on the harsh environment in prisons which would only expose the youth into more crime, violent behavior, and predispose them to poor health. However, the degree of crime may also determine the sentence. First-time youth offenders in a drug deal may be sentenced to community service to serve as a warning and to promote a change in their behavior.
Many counter-balancing effects on the impact of incarceration on the reduction of criminal activities do exist but are however ambiguous. One of them is specific deterrence where punishment is given to the offenders with the hope that the individual recidivism will be minimized (Tonry, 2014). The other one is, general deterrence where when the judge passes a sentence to an offender, the hope is that a huge population will be discouraged from committing the particular offense. An example is using the mainstream media to publicize the proceeding of a court hearing all through to the sentencing with the hope that the verdict will discourage potential criminals from committing a similar offense. Murder, rape, and drug cases are the most publicized and their punishment declared to the public with the hope of instilling avoidance from the general public. Incapacitation of individuals is one of the most common forms of crime reduction where the criminal justice system aims at preventing further crime from happening by sentencing the offenders to imprisonment. Felons such as murders are sent to prison to promote public safety with the hope that the offenders will be reformed by the end of the sentence unless in the case where they are charged with life imprisonment.
A lot of tax-payers money is spent to sustain offenders in prison through a variety of services offered. Given that most prisons are overcrowding, it means that more staff and more services such as healthcare need to be provided to sustain the prisons (Welsh, & Farrington, 2011). Sentencing offenders to alternative incarceration programs such as community service, drug rehabilitation centers, and mental health centers among others will help to cut the cost of punishment. Overcrowding in prison is associated with increased disease outbreaks due to the poor living conditions which means that more money will be spent on acquiring medical services to treat the inmates. It saves the tax-payers a penny or two when drug addicts, mentally ill offenders, and the youth are sentenced to their respective rehabilitation centers. Serving in the community center allows an offender to remain economically productive and especially when they are the breadwinners of their families hence minimizing overdependence on the government o provide support to such families.
Conclusion
Judges have to strictly follow the law when passing a sentence to an offender to ensure that it serves the intended purpose of minimizing crime, promoting public safety, and enhancing changed behavior on the offenders. It is important that more alternatives to prison be used when providing punishment to avoid overcrowding in prison which is characterized by a range of adverse consequences including high costs. A defendant can only be sentenced to prison only when he or she has a legal representation of a counsel during the hearing of the case and before a sentence is passed on them by the judge or the magistrate.
References
Andersen, S. H. (2015). Serving time or serving the community? Exploiting a policy reform to assess the causal effects of community service on income, social benefit dependency, and recidivism. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(4), 537-563.
Ashworth, A. (2017). The evolution of English sentencing guidance in 2016. Criminal Law Review, 2017(7).
Bandyopadhyay, S. (2013). Crime policy in an era of Austerity. The Police Journal, 86(2), 102- 115.
Blume, J. H., & Helm, R. K. (2014). The unexonerated: Factually innocent defendants who plead guilty. Cornell L. Rev., 100, 157.
GOV.UK. (2017). Woman jailed after providing a false statement to Court. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/woman-jailed-after-providing-false-statement-to- court
Police.UK. (n.d.). The criminal justice process. Retrieved from https://www.police.uk/information-and-advice/court-service/the-process/
Tonry, M. (2014). Legal and ethical issues in the prediction of recidivism. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 26(3), 167-176.
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). The benefits and costs of early prevention compared with imprisonment: Toward evidence-based policy. The Prison Journal, 91(3_suppl), 120S-137S.
