The Sentencing Phase in the United States - Research Paper Example

SENTENCING PHASE IN THE UNITED S ID Number: of of School Estimated Word Count: 1,266 Date of Submission: November 20, 2011 SENTENCING PHASE IN THE UNITED STATES Introduction The criminal justice system in the United States has a very convoluted, time-consuming procedure; this is intended to make sure that only the guilty go to jail and the innocent spared. It is something that people have to live with in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice, so to speak. The justice system forms the third leg of the triad in the handling of criminal cases, the other two being law enforcement system and the penal or corrections system. All three must work together for penal sanctions to be effective as a deterrent to the commission of crimes. The wheels of justice can indeed grind very slowly and sometimes it takes years for the victims to get vindication and justice for the harm done to them. In a sense, the concern to be so careful to avoid penalizing the innocent is the main cause of this slowness in the justice system. There are many cases of wrongful convictions in which innocent persons served time for several years with some of them eventually executed but which their innocence has been proven after a careful re-examination of the evidence against them. It is indeed regrettable that these things do sometimes happen but it is all part of the risks that society has to take. This brief paper deals on the sentencing phase of the criminal justice system and tries to discuss some of the more urgent issues regarding this crucial phase. From the first contact with a report to the police, the arraignment, the trial proper and finally securing a conviction, there are many procedural steps to be taken in order to safeguard the rights of the accused and to secure a conviction of the guilty party. There are no shortcuts to this procedure as one might wish. Discussion No criminal justice system is perfect. Be that as it may, it should not prevent society nor preclude the government from imposing justice for deviant behaviors. The idea is that the system must be geared towards fairness and equality; flaws in the system can be corrected over time and must not adversely affect the sense of trust by the people that the system is indeed fair. Lapses in the procedures, processes and practices must not undermine the whole legal system. There are a lot of variables that can confound and confuse the litigants in many instances. A person can opt out of the criminal justice system through a plea bargain agreement that will lessen the sentence to be imposed and may subject the defendant to probation (i.e. supervised community service). A person who chooses to go to trial instead may do so if he or she believes in her chances of being proven innocent but it also involves a considerable risk of being found guilty. Assuming the prosecution side did a good job of pursuing the case and the defendant is eventually found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the sentencing phase is the next step in a court procedure. The judge may determine whether the guilty person should remain in jail pending the actual sentencing (depending on the severity of the crime committed) or be released on a bond. There is some time lapse between the time a defendant (or accused) has been found guilty of the charges and the actual sentencing commensurate to the crime. The judge also has a considerable degree of discretion on the severity or length of the sentence to be imposed although some types of crimes have mandatory sentences. If more than one sentence is to be imposed, the judge has to decide whether these should run concurrently or consecutively. Some documents are required by a judge during the sentence phase in order to help him decide on the appropriate sentence. Additional documentation – some judges request probation officers to furnish them a bit more information regarding the guilty party; such as social history, previous criminal records and even family or medical records that can help to explain the guilty partys deviant behavior and it may help to lessen the sentence or conversely, make the judge impose a more severe sentence. In some cases, the probation officers recommend to the judge the sentence to be imposed as written in their pre-sentencing investigation report (PSI) during the sentencing trial phase or what is now more commonly known as the penalty or punishment phase (May, Minor, Ruddell and Matthews, 2007, p. 204). A judge may impose the minimum, maximum or any in-between penalties. How legislation has changed – criminal jurisprudence has undergone a considerable bit of changes over the years, depending on the philosophy involved in criminal justice thinking. A paradigm shift occurred in the penal system from being punitive to more rehabilitative in nature; however, in states which have more punitive laws, the sentences have become more severe as an effective deterrent to repeat offenses. To combat rising crime rates, many government policies in general have adopted a “tough on crime” attitude when it comes to sentencing. Examples of the changes include a “three-strike policy” and “truth-in-sentencing” schemes influenced largely by shifting public opinion, social values, personal beliefs and the glare of media coverage. There is a marked shift also from using indeterminate to determinate sentences being imposed. Extra-legal factors – the gender, race, social status, economic standing and educational attainment of a convicted criminal can sometimes influence the sentences imposed. These factors are separate and distinct from the legally relevant factors being considered by the judge. The rich and the famous often get a different brand of justice than most people (Fuhrman, 1997, p. 310). Four philosophies – sentencing can be carried out depending on the ends of justice that include retribution (vengeance), just deserts (punishment to satisfy the victim), deterrence (or the prevention aspect) and incapacitation (to disable the criminal from doing further harm). The idea is to segregate the criminal physically from society by putting him behind prison bars. Victims statements – some courts allow limited time and opportunities for crime victims to make a statement during sentencing known as victim impact statements (VIS) where victims are encouraged to speak out their feelings and sentiments; they may ask for longer sentences or a harsher punishment (or in the case of capital punishment, a swifter execution date). The VIS is often integrated into the PSI required by the judge from probation officers as mentioned earlier (Barkan and Bryjak, 2011, p. 177). The convicted person can also make a direct appeal for some leniency on sentencing trial and have the right to present testimonies; it is called allocution. Conclusion The criminal justice system is not always fair all the time; it is stacked in favor of those accused (guilt beyond reasonable, right to post bail, right to file an appeal, etc.) and it requires a lot of money and a high-powered lawyer to escape justice. The poor often gets convicted due to poor handling of the case by a public lawyer who may be overloaded with so many cases. A case like that of O. J. Simpson is a prime example how the system can be distorted despite evidence. A lapse in proper police procedures by scene of crime operatives (SOCO) can contaminate some evidence that can be put into question by a good attorney (Daniels, 2009, p. 29) and create doubt in the minds of the judge or the jury. The sentencing trial allows the prosecution to present all its evidence for aggravating factors while the defense will present all its mitigating factors (Cornell University, 2010, p. 1). Sentences may include jail time, fines, probation or any combination. Reference List Barkan, S. E. & Bryjak, G. J. (2011). Fundamentals of criminal justice: a sociological view. Sudbury, MA, USA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Cornell University Law School. (2010, August 19). “Criminal procedure: An overview.” Retrieved November 19, 2011 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_procedure Daniels, H. (2009). OJ: He didnt do it. The real facts about the killing of Nicole and Ron Goldman. Bloomington, IN, USA: Xlibris Corporation. Fuhrman, M. (1997). Murder in Brentwood. Washington, DC, USA: Regnery Publishing, Inc. May, D. C., Minor, K. I., Ruddell, R. & Matthews, B. A. (2007). Corrections and the criminal justice system. Sudbury, MA, USA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Read More