3.1 Offences where Mandatory Sentencing is Applied
Mandatory sentencing currently applies for many offences. Stated in the CCA, section 279(4), adults who are guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment. Under section 90(1a) of the SA it also states life imprisonment must be imposed with a minimum of 15 years without parole. Section 318(2) of the CCA states if a person is over 16 but under 18 and committs a serious assult against any officer (police, transit, security etc) a term of detention of at least 3 months must be imposed. Section 401 of the CCA only states there must be a mandatory fine paid if a person commits burglary. More recently in 1996 the WA government introduced the “three strikes and you 're in” law under the
…show more content…
Section 297, Grievous bodily harm, states “any person who unlawfully does grievous bodily harm to another is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.” Section 297(2) states if a motor vehicle is stolen during this act it will result in an increase to 14 years imprisonment.
4.0 Benefits of Mandatory Sentencing This section needs to summarise and explain the academic and legal argument regarding mandatory sentencing and benefits of reducing judicial discretion in sentencing decisions. (Judicial discretion is the power of the judiciary to make some legal decisions according to their discretion (what they think should be done) You will need to cite relevant journal articles here as they will be the best sources of information. You are welcome to cite literature which discusses mandatory sentencing in other jurisdictions, however make sure you link it back to your topic. Hint: the benefits relate to an increase in consistency across sentencing decisions and increasing community safety by enforcing terms of imprisonment.
There has been long been debate between academics and policy (legal) makers about the impact of mandatory sentencing and benefits of reducing judicial discretion in sentencing decisions. There are a couple of benefits of mandatory sentencing including an increase in community safety and the removal of personal bias which results in an increase of consistency across sentencing decisions.
4.1 Community Safety
After mandatory
In July of 1914, after a series of events beginning with the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand, followed by a various mobilizations and declarations of war, and culminating with the German invasion of France, the conflict, called then The Great War, and now known as World War 1, began. After the war began, the United States declared a policy of strict neutrality. President Woodrow Wilson, rather than support one side or the other, attempted to act as a moderator, and sent his top aides on diplomatic missions to both sides. (Ernst)
Rehnquist, a judge himself at this point, believes that mandatory sentencing is the result of knee jerk reactions from legislators. Not only that, but the sentences are unusually harsh on first time offenders, a group which is usually offered some form of leniency in light of the fact that they are not habitual offenders. Rehnquist argues that a better policy would be to return to former guidelines. This is the stance this policy seeks to take. That having such inflexible rules on sentencing does not account for the all the variables that are involved in a the legal process, such as the age of offender, past criminal history, mitigating circumstances and other factors that experienced judges would know to take into account when handing down sentences.
In the article “Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: A Failed Policy,” the author highlights how mandatory minimum sentencing is a policy that has failed in attempt to put an end to drug crimes. Batey stated that the attempts of federal and state thought that they could “get tough on crime,” particularly drug offense, by eliminating the sentence discretion of judges and restoring it with long minimum sentences that applied regardless of defendant's individual circumstances (Batey 24). Moreover, the mandatory minimum sentences take authority away from the judge and give it to the prosecutor, who decides whether to charge the defendant with a crime carrying a long minimum sentence or much less offense. Withal, mandatory minimum sentences have failed due to giving America’s power too much power in plea bargaining, an imbalance that has led to the incarceration of persons too fearful to insist on a hearing that might have released them (Batey 25). Finally, Batey mentions that mandatory minimum sentence policy has filled prisons with the wrong people, which are minor players, not drug kingpins, and even some who are innocent (Batey 25).
The court system is an organization in order to provide swift and accurate judgement to the public. When an individual commits a crime they are summoned to appear before a judge. The judge is the individual who will determine their fines, jail time and the overall outcome of a case. This paper will discuss mandatory minimum sentences and sentencing guidelines.
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws entail binding prison terms to a certain length for people who have been convicted of state or federal crimes. These intransigent, “universally adaptable” sentencing laws may seem like an easy and quick solution for crime. However, these laws prevent judges from suiting the punishment to the criminal according to their offenses. Mandatory minimum sentencing causes not only state but federal prisons to overcrowd, extortionate tax costs, and deflect from law enforcement funds.
“Like the ancient tension between fixed and indeterminate sentencing, there’s an ancient debate about judicial discretion in sentencing.” Proponents argue that mandatory minimum sentencing can place a significant hardship on correctional budgets while at the same time, threatening an increase of an inmate’s claim that their rights pursuant to the Eighth Amendment protection of cruel and unusual punishment have been violated. Opponents of fixed sentencing tend to posit that mandatory (determinate) sentencing can act as a deterrent, which can equate to a reduction in overall crime rates.
The ancient civilisation of Egypt has always been an admirable one, and until this day it is still full of mysteries. Despite all the discoveries that archeologists have made, there are many unexplained matters that they are still trying figure out. People considered pharaohs as they were descended from gods; however pharaohs knew that they are normal beings. Of Course they couldn’t show that to the people, and in order to keep their majestic image they turned to making such spectacular breathtaking status, tombs, and paintings.
The concept of mandatory minimum sentencing has been plaguing the justice system of the United States of America for too many years and therefore must be abolished. If mandatory minimum sentencing were to be done away with, then the criminal justice system could finally start to bring desperately needed change to itself and start to get back to where it needs to be; a system that takes people with a problem and returns a reformed individual capable of positively contributing to society. By getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing, the prison populations could be reduced, allowing for more attention to be given to the reformation of each individual giving them a better chance at success. The research shows that getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing will be more cost effective, keep prison populations lower, limit unjust sentencing, and make sure that the punishment that an individual receives is proportional to the crime that they have been convicted of.
Mandatory penalties have not always been a central feature of the U.S. criminal justice system (Subramanian, Ram and Delaney R, 2014). Until the 1980s, sentencing in the United
In today’s society crimes in the United State are growing each day, and the major aspect of the U.S criminal justice system is the punishment imposed on those who committed crimes in our communities. One method of sentencing criminals was the establishment of the mandatory minimum sentencing. During the early days of the republic, specific sentences were carried out for certain crime and early mandatory sentences the forms of punishment used at the time stretched from ducking stools/cucking stools for disorderly women and dishonest tradesmen in England, Soctland to hanging for convicted murderers. However, in recent years, evidence gathered have shown that the federal mandatory minimum sentencing were not in effect for reaching the goals of the criminal justice system. Chief Justice William Rehnquist has previously stated that “these statutes are “perhaps a good example of the law of unintended consequences. This essay will discuss the history, goals, benefits, and negatives of the American Judicial Systems Mandatory Sentencing.
Judicial discretion was prevalent over the first half of the last three decades, but has been regulated by legislature since 1984. Discretion by definition is the authorization of deciding as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits (Ntanda, 1999). Indeterminate sentencing, traditionally, has afforded judges considerable discretion over the resolve of criminal sentencing. “While such discretion theoretically allows judges to tailor sentences to the circumstances of individual crimes and criminals, thereby achieving a sort of ex post fairness, it also permits variation in sentences that may not be warranted by the observable facts of the case, reflecting instead the judge’s own preferences” (Miceli, 2008, p.207). The punishment
Each year in America many people received prison sentences for crimes that pose little if any danger or harm to our society. Mandatory Minimum Sentencing in the American Justice System has long been argued by both Lawmakers and the public. We will go over some of the history of mandatory minimum sentences as well as the many pros and cons to these types of sentences. Some examples of pros and cons are the overall effect on public safety, the effect on the offenders, the cost to taxpayers, the lack of discretion for Judge’s, and whether the law should be repealed.
In the United States there are four main goals when it comes to punishment which are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). The main goals for these punishments are to maintain order over society and to prevent recidivism (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). This ties into the Ecology perspective. By maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism, it ties into all of the issues regarding the Ecology perspective which requires for each issue to address the individual, family, community and society. Maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism strives toward making a safer environment for the individual, family, community and society. There is no universal agreement for making the severity of punishment just or fair (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). When it comes to retribution the person who is getting punished deserves the punishment (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Retribution refers to when an individual commits a certain crime then that person must receive a punishment proportionate to that crime or suffering that they may have caused towards the victim (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Regarding deterrence there are two types, general deterrence and specific deterrence (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). General deterrence focuses on the society in general and wants to scare everyone away from committing crimes (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Specific deterrence focuses on criminals that have already been convicted and wants to prevent them from
Bentham, J. (1789). Punishment and deterrence. In A. von Hirsch & A. Ashworth (Eds., 1998), Principled sentencing: readings on theory and policy (2nd ed.). 53-57. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
To begin with, it is necessary to say that punishment is an integral part of modern countries’ legal systems, because countries have a duty to protect society from wrongdoers and authorities could reach success in it by punishing offenders. Oxford English Dictionary defines punishment as the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence. There are four main purposes of punishment – incapacitation, deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation – and the aim of this paper is to