Courts and Corrections - Coursework Example

Courts and Corrections The U.S. system of justice operates on the premise that crimes committed againstpersons are, in essence, an offense committed against the State. Courts at the City, County, State and Federal levels process civil and criminal cases based on the constitutionally guaranteed due process of law. This right insures that citizens are protected from unjustifiable intrusions from the government by requiring specific, progressive actions be taken in the dispensation of justice. Following an arrest, law enforcement officials gather and present evidence to a prosecutor who determines if charges are to be filed with the court. The accused appears before the court soon after arrest and is informed of the charges upon arrest. Depending upon the severity of the offense, the judge determines bail, if any and, if the crime is minor, may impose sentencing at this time or dismiss the case for lack of probable cause. The case is then sent to a grand jury who weighs evidence brought against the accused and decides whether to bring the case to trial. Defendants with no criminal record may be able to avoid formal prosecution by adhering to certain conditions of the court such as the completion of a counseling program. This and an admission of guilt may result in the charges being dismissed. An arraignment is scheduled if a grand jury files an indictment with the court. At arraignment, the accused is told of the charges by a judge and pleads guilty or not to the charges. A plea of guilty is commonly a result of a settlement of sentence between the prosecutor and the accused. No trial is held if the judge accepts the defendant’s plea of guilty then either imposes sentencing at that time or at a later date. A jury trial is guaranteed for persons accused of a serious crime but the defendant is allowed to request a bench trial where the judge displaces the jury’s role by determining the guilt or innocence of the individual on his/her own. In this circumstance, the prosecuting and defense attorneys present evidence to the judge who then decides on matters of law. The trial, whether by jury or not, results in the acquittal or conviction of the defendant on either the original charge or one of a lesser nature. Following a conviction, sentence is handed down that follows statutory limitations. In most circumstances, the judge determines the sentence, although in certain jurisdictions, the sentence is decided by the jury, especially for murder convictions. A sentencing hearing may be held where mitigating circumstances are weighed. In deciding on a suitable sentence, courts many times rely on pre-sentence investigations and consider the convicted person’s past criminal behavior and may also take into account victim impact testimonials. The defendant can then file an appeal regarding the conviction or sentence imposed. Appeals are automatic in death penalty sentences. In addition, inmates may also appeal their sentences when claiming unlawful detention. Several sentencing options are available to judges and juries including the death penalty (in some states), imprisonment of varying degrees or probation which allows the convicted person to remain free but under particular circumstances and restrictions. Fines can be imposed instead of or in addition to prison sentences and restitution paid to the victim. The law directs that those convicted of specified types of crimes serve a mandatory prison term in many jurisdictions. Most jurisdictions allow the judge to establish the sentence duration within specified boundaries and some have specific sentencing guidelines that stipulate a specific sentence time-span that must be served unalterable by a parole board (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004). Those convicted of criminal activities who are sentenced to confinement generally serve their time in a local jail or a state prison. Usually, those offenders sentenced to less than one year for their crimes are sent to jail; those sentenced to more than one year, to prison. The federal system and state prison systems employ different levels of confinement, from minimum detention with few guards and no walls up to maximum security facilities with severely restricted privileges. An inmate may become eligible for parole after serving a pre-determined portion of their sentence. Parole is the conditional release of an inmate prior to the completion of the entire imposed sentence. The parole board weighs the merits of each individual’s case and determines if parole is to be granted. This board has authority to grant, revoke parole or to discharge a parolee altogether with no conditions or restrictions. The method by which parole board decisions are made varies broadly between differing jurisdictions. Inmates may be required to serve their full sentence whether imposed by the judge such as ‘life without parole’ sentences or based on poor behavior while incarcerated. Inmates can accumulate ‘goodtime’ credits which subtract time from their sentences or earn time subtracted from their sentence through involvement in rehabilitation programs at the prison. When released from prison via a parole board decision, the freedom is conditional. The released convict is regularly scrutinized under the supervision of a parole officer in the community for the remainder of their original sentence. If the ex-inmate violates any of the conditions of the parole, they may be returned to prison (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004). Usually, the determination of sentence is made not by juries but by judges, even subsequent to jury trials. A universal jury instruction notifies jurors not to contemplate the type of punishment received by the defendant when deliberating their fate. Juries do participate in sentencing decisions for capital punishment trials in most states. A judge cannot sentence a person to death following a trial unless jury recommended. At the other end of the judicial spectrum, some misdemeanor infractions come with a posted pre-determined punishment. For example, a statute might read, ‘Littering is punishable by a $1,000 fine and/or a six month imprisonment.’ Most state and all federal criminal codes require mandatory sentences. This forces judges to impose consistent, particular sentencing on all people who disobey those laws. Mandatory sentencing requirements are state and federal legislature’s attempt to halt judicial leniency and prejudice. However, it can have the negative effect of disallowing judges the flexibility to consider the defendant’s criminal record, background or other mitigating circumstances under which the crime was perpetrated or whether the convicted legitimately feels regret. Mandatory sentence laws ‘fit the punishment to the crime,’ whereas judges prefer to ‘fit the punishment to the offender’ (“How Sentencing Works”, 2006). Mitigating circumstances might include a tragedy in the defendant’s life that caused undue stress or temporary emotional breakdown possibly combined with other unusual circumstances. Confining a normally law-abiding citizen in jail for a relatively minor offense has an unintended negative societal effect. The rule of law necessitates that a court first ascertains which facts are pertinent, then reason to the form and quantity of punishment. The credibility of punitive actions is dependent upon being based upon the facts of the case and the individual’s situation (Smith & Dickey, 1999). Identifying the purpose of punishment that fit the facts as they vary from case to case is essential in the justice system’s successful implementation of these procedures and therefore its perceived benefit to society. How a court might process the habitual small time criminal illustrates this concept. Four different judges that would abide by sentencing guidelines of one year imprisonment for the petty thief may have four different motives for taking similar actions. One judge might believe incarceration is a deterrent to others that might steal while another judge hopes the punishment will deter this thief from committing future thefts. A third judge thinks that he is deterring crime only while this known thief is locked up and a fourth is concerned only about punishing those that do wrong because that is what they deserve. It is improbable that the opinions of each of these judges are equally credible. Courts are not expected to draw correlations between the punishment and its specific benefit to society when explaining it’s rational for sentencing. The justice system, in part because of mandatory sentencing guidelines, seldom allows courts to assess the diverse punitive approaches by which sentences might advance the reduction of criminal activity. This is a major factor in the problem of prison overcrowding. Courts may select from a few options to handing down prison sentences such as community service, drug abuse programs and house arrest, each of which serves certain but not all objectives of crime reduction. Solving the divergence of rationale between differing judges and their administration of reasonable sentencing tactics is not achievable unless courts specify their motives for sentencing. Clarity regarding the court’s punitive intention and approach is of no concern to those who believe prison confinement alone is an effective method of combating crime in the long term. The absence of judicial clarity regarding punitive policies halts the examination into the conceivability of each sentencing option available to the court (Smith, 1998). References Bureau of Justice Statistics. (January 14, 2004). “The Justice System: What is the Sequence of Events in the Criminal Justice System?” US Department of Justice. “How Sentencing Works: FAQ.” (2006). Trials, Sentencing and Appeals. Retrieved May 1, 2006 from < http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/1/objectId/FE3EE6EE-4A7A-4048-8534E43FC1FC9A60/catId/428413CA-3B6B-48E3-B69FDF80F4D8E95D/104/143/153/FAQ/> Smith, Michael E. (October 1998). “Let Specificity, Clarity and Parsimony of Purpose be our Guide.” Law and Policy. Vol. 20, I. 4. Smith, Michael E. & Dickey, Walter J. (September 1999). “Sentencing and Corrections: Issues for the 21st Century.” National Institute of Justice. Read More