The Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Purposes of Sentencing - Essay Example

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Sect 142) specifies the purposes of sentencing. Discuss the extent to which prison sentences can fulfill these purposes. Essay Plan: Introduction Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Sect 142) 1. Age of application. 6 Purposes served by the Justice Act 2. Punishing the offender. Reducing crime (including by deterrence). Rehabilitation and Reformation of offender. Public protection. Reparations to people affected by the offenders’ offence. Prevention of offence (For aged under 18). Retribution sentencing or Utilitarian sentencing applied by the judge/jury to attain purposes of the Criminal Justice Act 3. Main Body of Essay Punishing the offender and what it leads to Rehabilitation sentencing can give the offender a false sense of security leading to reoffending. Utilitarian approach must be followed to control crime. Fear of punishment prevents offence. Continued use of punishment is proof how efficiently it works 4. Increased punishment intensity increases unwanted behavior suppression 5. Example of Micheal Fay being caned in Singapore 6 . Severe Punishment prevents crime as offenders fear the consequence f the offence. Reducing Crime The sentences that are carried out reduce the rate of crime. Research suggests that the rate of burglary falls when sentence term increases 7. Research conducted in 43 English and Wales Forces. Prison sentences reduced repeated property crimes. Burglary crimes by 4,800, out of 962,700/year. Fraud: 4,700 offences a year, out of 242,400. Rehabilitation and Reformation. Rehabilitation and reformation results when the sentencers adopt a utilitarian approach. Rehabilitation can result from prison sentencing. Robert Martinson reviewed 231 studies conducted over a period of 1945-1967 and concluded that rehabilitation has no significant effect on recidivism8. Last decades of the 20th century saw sentencing as a means to rehabilitation. Protection of Public IPP (Indeterminate Prison Sentence for Public Protection). Ages 18-21. Maximum term of life imprisonment is to be served if considered a danger to public. IPP is only implemented to protect the public from serious offenders. Reparations to people affected by the offenders’ offence. What is reparation? Sense of satisfaction for the people affected by offender’s offence. Sense of security for the society at offenders being sentenced. Monitory reparations result mostly from damage or loss to property. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Offence Prevention (under age 18). Fear of being punished results in prevention of the crime and offence. Children are more influenced by threat of the punishment. Proper implementation of prison sentencing causes children to refrain from crimes. Conclusion Sentencing strengthens the society as a whole. Sentencing leads to suppression and prevention of crime. Sentencing creates a fear for the offenders, for having to pay for their offence. Sentencing defines borders and boundaries of bad behaviour. Literature review: The Criminal Justice Act was introduced in 2003 as a means of introducing modern measures in the criminal justice system. The section 142 deals with the purposes of sentencing. It sheds light on what should be attained by sentencing an offender. It lists six purposes that should be at the hem of each sentence. Prison sentence is also aimed at the six purposes of the Criminal Justice Act. Prison sentences implement effects on the offender as well the person/s affected by the offence, as it should be according to the Act. When an offender has fear of punishment, the fear will act as a deterring force against the crime or offence. Lack of sentence implementation or lesser sentences being given leads to an increased crime rate. Even in the United States of America reforms are being considered at every level for the implementation of sentences and to make them consistent9. Steven Levitt10 found that the states that sent fewer criminals to jail had a higher rate of crime as compared to the states that had a higher prison population11. The fear of having a sentence implemented can lead to a falling crime rate. Many Reform advocates also imply that the crimes and criminals can only be controlled by implementation of severe and longer sentences12. General Edward Levi also considered the inability to prison many criminals, the reason behind rising crime rates in America13. Not only judicial entities but also public in the United States of America are of the mind that the judiciary should adopt a tougher approach towards criminals, as only this can be now seen as an appropriate solution to the problem. A study revealed that prison growth rate is directly co related to decreased crime rates14. In the 1980’s mandatory sentences were implemented in the USA. As a result the 90’s saw a decrease in burglary by 50%, robbery rate fell by one third, and rate of car theft also dropped15. Sentence implementation also leads to building public confidence in the judiciary and the government. A feeling of being looked after prevails. When the government appears to be tackling offenders and crime with a tough stance, it leads to an increased sense of public safety16. Increased prison sentencing lead 75% of Americans reporting they felt safe17. Stephen Levitt and Daniel Kessler18 looked into the effects of the implementation of California’s Proposition 8. The legislation had really tough counter crime sentences. It allocated decades of imprisonment to the recurrent offenders. The passing of the law lead to an 8% decrease in the crime rate, establishing that the fear of longer and tougher sentence impacts crime rate. Furthermore 7 years after implementation of the legislation, when offenders served their doubled sentences, the crime rate fell a further 20%19. Plecas also suggests a five year mandatory sentence for recidivism20. Consistency of sentence can further the purpose intended by the Criminal Justice Act. A consistency of sentences for serious crimes and criminals, and their just implementation can lead to lowered crime rates21, ensure public safety and rehabilitate the offender. Also no one should be considered above the law. Crime for fun should also be discouraged. Crime for fun and drugs should be discouraged and prevented. Sentencing actually contributes to crime prevention. In Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction, survey it was found that only 6% of prisoners had been sentenced to prison for their initial offences, and were given alternate punishment22. Determinate sentencing is seen as a fair system of sentence implementation, since the committing of the same crime by different people results in the same sentence23. When people will know and understand the crime’s consequences, it will lead to crime deterrence. Contradicting views also suggest that increase in prison population does not lead to feeling of public safety24. Increased prison population also leads to over populated prisons, leading to violation of prisoners rights. Also increased prison population indicates that new prisons and guards are needed to monitor the growing number of criminals in prisons25. A bad experience in the prison during sentence can lead the offender into retaliatory behaviour. Monitory costs of keeping so many people in prison can also be felt. Prisons turn out to be really expensive way of keeping prisoners26. The cost of managing prisoners and prisons is a burden on the taxpayers. Rather than looking at the crime, also attention should be paid to the reasons leading to crime. Prisoners backgrounds, histories and their problems and needs should also be accounted for in order to address re-offence, the childhoods of the reoffending criminals were subjected to abuse, trauma, and violence27. It can also be argued that whereas sentencing can create a dread of the crime’s punishment, at the same time different people have different behavioural tendencies. Where determinate sentencing creates a sense of consistency at the same time every person being different reacts differently to the punishment28. Sentencing might have its pros and cons, but the significance of its implementation in the world of crime and its effectiveness cannot be ignored. Researchers have now and again proven the direct co-relation that prison sentencing and lower crime rates have. Although factors like the experience of the judge should be considered while pronouncing a sentence29. Factors such as family backgrounds and childhood environments can also be further researched to find out their implications. Prison sentencing fulfills its purposes as out lined by the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 to a very great deal, and by no means can its significance be underplayed. End Notes: 1. Criminal Justice Act 2003 [web document] (2003) , accessed 15 December 2012. 2. Criminal Justice Act 2003, ‘General provisions about sentencing’ [web document] (2003) < www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/142>, accessed 15 December 2012. 3. Sixth Form Law, ‘Principles of sentencing - the aims of sentencing’ [web document] (2008) , accessed 15 December 2012. 4. Ann, Sanson et al, ‘Punishment & Behaviour Change’, APS Position Paper (Australian Psychological Society, 1995). 5. N.H. Azrin and W.C. Holz, cited in Ann Sanson et al, Punishment & Behaviour Change, APS Position Paper (Australian Psychological Society, 1995). 6. Cyndi Banks, Criminal Justice Ethics, Theory and Practice: The Purpose of Criminal Punishment (3rd edn.; Los Angeles, Sage Publications Inc., 2009). 7. Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay, ‘Acquisitive Crime: Imprisonment, Detection and Social Factors’, Research Paper (University of Birmingham, 2012). 8. Robert Martinson, cited in Frank Rocket, Prisoner Rehabilitation-The Role of Custodial Institution (Queensland Department of Corrective Services, 2006). 9. Joan Petersilia and Peter W. Greenwood, ‘Mandatory Prison Sentences: Their Projected Effects on Crime and Prison Population’, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 69/4 (1978), 604-615. 10. Economist at the University of Chicago. 11. Chad Skeleton, ‘JAIL TIME = LESS CRIME, Since the United States instituted mandatory sentences, crime has dropped dramatically. Will the same hold true for Canada?, Readers Digest [web page] (2007) < http://www2.readersdigest.ca/mag/2007/10/jailtime_lesscrime.php>, accessed 15 December 2012. 12. Joan Petersilia and Peter W. Greenwood, ‘Mandatory Prison Sentences: Their Projected Effects on Crime and Prison Population’, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 69/4 (1978), 604-615. 13. Petersilia and Greenwood, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, p.604 14. Thomas B. Marvell and Carlisle E. Moody Jr, ‘Prison Population Growth and Crime Reduction’, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10/2 (1994), 109-140. 15. Chad Skeleton, ‘JAIL TIME=LESS CRIME, Since the United States instituted mandatory sentences, crime has dropped dramatically. Will the same hold true for Canada?, Readers Digest [web page] (2007) < http://www2.readersdigest.ca/mag/2007/10/jailtime_lesscrime.php>, accessed 15 December 2012. 16. Trevor Sather (ed.), Pros and Cons: A Debaters Handbook (edn., London: Routledge, 1999). 17. Roger Brooking, ‘Prisons improve public safety- yeah right?’, Brookingblog [web page] (2011) < http://brookingblog.com/category/prisons-and-public-safety/> accessed 15 December 2012. 18. Chad Skeleton, ‘JAIL TIME = LESS CRIME, Since the United States instituted mandatory sentences, crime has dropped dramatically. Will the same hold true for Canada?, Readers Digest [web page] (2007) , accessed 15 December 2012. 19. Daniel Kessler and Steven D. Levitt, ‘Using Sentence Enhancements To Distinguish Between Deterrence and Incapacitation’, Journal of Law and Economics, 42 (1999), 343-363. 20. Plecas, cited in Chad Skeleton, ‘JAIL TIME = LESS CRIME, Since the United States instituted mandatory sentences, crime has dropped dramatically. Will the same hold true for Canada?, Readers Digest [web page] (2007) , accessed 15 December 2012. 21. Trevor Sather (ed.), Pros and Cons: A Debaters Handbook (edn., London: Routledge, 1999). 22. Richard Boorman and Kathryn Hopkins, ‘Prisoners’ criminal backgrounds and proven re-offending after release: results from the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) survey’, Research Paper (Ministry of Justice, 2012). 23. Criminal Defense Lawyer, ‘Indeterminate vs. Determinate Prison Sentences Explained’, Criminal Defense Lawyer [web page] (2012) , accessed 15 December 15, 2012. 24. Roger Brooking, ‘Prisons improve public safety- yeah right?’, Brooking blog [web page] (2011) < http://brookingblog.com/category/prisons-and-public-safety/>, accessed 15 December 2012. 25. Steve Johnson, ‘Advantages and Disadvantages of Tougher Sentencing’, eHow [web page] (2012) < http://www.ehow.com/info_8165017_advantages-disadvantages-tougher-sentencing.html>, accessed 15 December 15, 2012. 26. Trevor Sather (ed.), Pros and Cons: A Debaters Handbook (edn., London: Routledge, 1999). 27. Richard Boorman and Kathryn Hopkins, ‘Prisoners’ criminal backgrounds and proven re-offending after release: results from the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) survey’, Research Paper (Ministry of Justice, 2012). 28. Richard and Kathryn, ‘Prisoners’ criminal backgrounds and proven re-offending after release: results from the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) survey’ (2012). 29. Ibid. (2012). Bibliography Banks Cyndi, Criminal Justice Ethics, Theory and Practice: The Purpose of Criminal Punishment (3rd edn.; Los Angeles, Sage Publications Inc., 2009). Bandyopadhyay Siddhartha, ‘Acquisitive Crime: Imprisonment, Detection and Social Factors’, Research Paper (University of Birmingham, 2012). Boorman, Richard and Hopkins, Kathryn, ‘Prisoners’ criminal backgrounds and proven re-offending after release: results from the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) survey’, Research Paper (Ministry of Justice, 2012). Brooking, Roger, ‘Prisons improve public safety- yeah right?’, Brooking blog [web page] (2011) < http://brookingblog.com/category/prisons-and-public-safety/> accessed 15 December 2012. Criminal Defense Lawyer, ‘Indeterminate vs Determinate Prison Sentences Explained’, Criminal Defense Lawyer [web page] (2012) , accessed 15 December 15, 2012. Criminal Justice Act 2003 [web document] (2003) , accessed 15 December 2012. Criminal Justice Act 2003, ‘General provisions about sentencing’ [web document] (2003) , accessed 15 December 2012. Johnson, Steve, ‘Advantages and Disadvantages of Tougher Sentencing’, eHow [web page] (2012) < http://www.ehow.com/info_8165017_advantages-disadvantages-tougher-sentencing.html>, accessed 15 December 15, 2012. Kessler, Daniel and Levitt, Steven D., ‘Using Sentence Enhancements To Distinguish Between Deterrence and Incapacitation’, Journal of Law and Economics, 42 (1999), 343-363. Marvell Thomas B. and Moody Jr Carlisle E., ‘Prison population growth and crime reduction’, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10/2 (1994), 109-140. Oxford A brief Guide (Victoria University, 2010). Petersilia, Joan and Greenwood, Peter W., ‘Mandatory Prison Sentences: Their Projected Effects on Crime and Prison Population’, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 69/4 (1978), 604-615. Referencing the Footnote/ Bibliography System (The University of South Wales, 2009). Rocket Frank, Prisoner Rehabilitation-The Role of Custodial Institution, [web document] (2006) < www.isrcl.org/Papers/2006/Rockett-paper.pdf>, accessed 15 December 2012. Roberts Amy, ‘Part A- Describe the Different Aims of Sentencing’, [web document] (2010). , accessed 15 December 2012. Sanson, Ann et al, ‘Punishment & Behaviour Change’, APS Position Paper (Australian Psychological Society, 1995). Sather, Trevor (ed.), Pros and Cons: A Debaters Handbook (edn., London: Routledge, 1999). Sixth Form Law, ‘Principles of sentencing - the aims of sentencing’ [web document] (2008) , accessed 15 December 2012. Skeleton, Chad, ‘JAIL TIME = LESS CRIME, Since the United States instituted mandatory sentences, crime has dropped dramatically. Will the same hold true for Canada?, Readers Digest [web page] (2007) , accessed 15 December 2012. Read More