Analyze the impact that various sentencing models have had on corrections
Corrections and Incarceration
Analyze the impact that various sentencing models have had on corrections
The criminal justice system adopted different sentencing models with different intentions and this has different impacts on the victims the corrections. The different sentencing models present the judge with a structure and guidelines that they need to follow when giving their judgments in the interest of achieving justice, equality, and fairness to the parties involved in every single case. In this regard, different sentencing models include the determinate sentencing, presumptive sentencing, and advisory or voluntary sentencing. The different sentencing models adopt different structures and processes with different impact on the sentencing procedures and sentencing outcomes to the victims and the correctional facilities.
Determinate Sentencing Model
The determinant sentencing models ensure that the offender is sentenced to a mandatory and fixed term of incarceration. Under the terms of determinate sentencing, the offender is automatically given a fixed or a determined sentence as opposed to the sentencing having a range or the judge having no discretion in the decision making regarding the case and the offender (Stemen, Don and Andres, 2004). Determinate sentencing is applied specific sentences for defined crimes or for offenders that are repeatedly involved in crime.
The determinate sentencing has a different impact on the parties in a case as well as to the criminal justice system. Determinate sentencing has a deterrent effect on the criminal as the stipulated crimes will be harshly sentences thus reducing the number of criminals in corrections (Silva, 2016). This fact makes the criminals avoid crimes thus reducing the levels of crimes. Consequently, determinate sentencing has enhanced the criminals to reform as they are subjected to appropriate programs within the fixed judgment to the point they can change their behaviors. This facts makes it possible to introduce reforms in the corrections.
Presumptive Sentencing
The presumptive sentencing entails a structured sentencing model that adopts specified sentencing procedures but allows the judge to use reasonable discretion in their rulings. The presumptive model is created through a combination or hybrid of other models to balance the mandatory sentencing and sentencing guidelines (Wool and Stemen, 2004). In this regard, the crimes are classified based on their seriousness and jail terms attached to such crime. The judge adopts the stipulated sentencing procedures and picks a reasonable ruling within a reasonable range.
The presumptive introduces a human approach to sentencing by considering different factors and aspects of the criminal concerning crime to ensure that moderate ruling is offered. Therefore, less strict rulings are offered in the interest of justice, fairness, and equality to enhance effective and efficient rehabilitation of criminals in the corrections. (Engen, 2009). Additionally, presumptive sentencing offers the judge the freedom of making decisions such that they can make decision s that go beyond the cases at hand such as controlling prison population size or combating inequality in the criminal justice system.
Voluntary or advisory sentencing
The voluntary sentencing classifies crime based on its seriousness and the range of jail term attached to each crime. The range of time attached to each crime gives great discretion such that that the judge’s freedom in decision making is improved as compared to other models (Edwards, Rushin and Colquitt, 2019). In this case, the sentencing guidelines are not mandatory but the judge is sufficiently guided or advised to select any sentencing within the set range.
Presumptive have the impact of giving the judge extreme freedom of making rulings but the rulings must be within the set range. This approach makes the judge to factor in various aspects of the criminals and crimes to enhance high levels of equality and fairness (Tonry, 2013). More so, the voluntary sentencing is flexible and thus has the impact of incorporating reforms within the criminal justice system and especialy in the corrections.
Conclusion
Different sentencing models have different impacts on the criminal’s justice system and thus they need to be effectively selected in the interest of upholding equality, fairness, and justice and operations in the corrections. Therefore, the choice of the sentencing model to be adopted should be dependent on the intended results or impacts such as incorporation reforms, enhancing the freedom of the judges, punishing crimes and introducing a deterrent effect.
References
Edwards, G., Rushin, S., & Colquitt, J. (2019). The Effects of Voluntary and Presumptive Sentencing Guidelines. Tex. L. Rev., 98, 1.
Engen, R. L. (2009). Assessing determinate and presumptive sentencing-Making research relevant. Criminology & Pub. Pol’y, 8, 323.
Sliva, S. M. (2016). Determinants of state innovations in American sentencing and corrections policy: A systematic review. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(7), 702-722.
Stemen, D., & Rengifo, A. F. (2011). Policies and imprisonment: The impact of structured sentencing and determinate sentencing on state incarceration rates, 1978–2004. Justice Quarterly, 28(1), 174-201.
Tonry, M. (2013). Sentencing in America, 1975–2025. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 141-198.
Wool, J., & Stemen, D. (2004). Aggravated sentencing: Blakely v. Washington: Practical implications for state sentencing systems. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 17(1), 60-68.
