Issues in Criminal Sentencing - Assignment Example

MODULE-5 Influence of the Practical Aspects on the Criminal Sentencing The criminals have never been positively accepted in the society. The criminalact is an act against humanity, and such act is considered to be intolerable. Unfortunately, the advent of crime has certain social, ethical, religious and political elements associated. The sense of political, social and ethical deprivation within the society infuriated the specific group which then indulged into criminal acts to voice against oppression and injustice. The crime has several interpretation associated with itself, it is an offensive approach against injustice, cruelty, deprivation, oppression, terrorism and hatred. The act committed to endanger the society, and responsible for developing social chaos and victimization is the real interpretation of crime. The several leading interpretations of the crime were responsible for certain amendments in the criminal sentencing. The definition of the crime has remained unchanged; however the type and nature of the criminal acts have changed. The latest amendments in the criminal laws have focused upon the identification of the actual cause behind the crime. Previously, any criminal act was worth condemnation and desolation therefore from social and philosophical aspects an attack of humanity was inhumane in all its form. During this period, the crime was considered to be resolved through retribution, and the criminal found guilty was sentenced vigorous punishment. The concept of revenge was common, and the criminals were treated under harsh circumstances without any provision of safeguard. As the society evolved, it was the social ignorance, illiteracy and poverty which re-defined the terminology and reasons behind criminal acts. The concept of rehabilitation then evolved which focused upon addressing the common social causes responsible for the growth of criminals. Under the concept of rehabilitation, the criminals were given an opportunity to undergo vocational and professional training. The intent of such measure was to make these criminals the responsible citizens of the state. The concept of deterrence was in addition to rehabilitation. The deterrent approach sought to offer next-generation criminals with fear of desolation, entrapment and despondency. The approach wanted to warn the society from turning towards crimes, and criminals convicted under the approach of retribution will be reference figures. The modified and refined concept of incapacitation has primary focus upon mitigation measures to control and restrict criminal acts. Under this philosophy the judiciary intend to handle and treat very criminal with distinct approach. The previous approaches have focused extensively upon resolution of the criminal acts from the society without specific focus on the personality and background of the criminals. Under the approach of incapacitation; the psychological, ethical, social and moral background of the criminals are reviewed individually. Based upon the individual review of each criminal, and record of their previous crime history, drug usage and psychological condition; the court then pronounces the sentence. This is considered to be approach which undertake criminal-therapy i.e. special sentence for the criminal based upon his past and present. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines were introduced after the promulgation of Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The intent of these guidelines was to incorporate the approach of incapacitation in the judiciary. These guidelines were introduced to stringent the judicial proceedings, "criminals with similar backgrounds who commit similar crimes receive similar sentences, irrespective of race, socio-economic status of geographic location" (Bohm, 1999). The Federal Sentencing Guidelines were in direction contradiction with the Sixth Amendments. The Sixth Amendment has provided the criminal with the right to have jury; therefore the influence of the judge is limited and his fact-finding mission has no significance. In Blakely v. Washington case, the trial judge based upon his fact-findings sentenced Blakely to 90months imprisonment which was greater than the mandatory sentencing guidelines limit of 53months. Blakely challenged the verdict, and claimed that under Sixth Amendment, it is the jury which has the right to determine the conclude facts, and their relevance to the sentence. The appeal of Blakely was however rejected by the Washington Supreme Court and Washington Court of Appeals but approved by U.S. Supreme Court. The reference provided by the defendant was the case entitled Apprendi v. New Jersey. In the referred case, the court instructed that penalty for the crime if exceeds the limit prescribed statutory then it must be referred to jury. Thus the jury will then review all the fact-findings, and will pronounce the sentence. The case entitled Koon v. U.S., Koon and his other officer colleagues were involved in the chase of high-speed vehicle driven by Rodney King. After successful chase, the four officers were accused of physical abuse against the Rodney King. The physical abuse was recorded by local agent. The federal court of L.A. found the officers accused of violating the civil rights of King, and convicted Koon and Powell for 30months imprisonment. The convicts then approach the U.S. Supreme Court for review. The court reviewed their case under Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and after establishing their acceptable past-record, and their "successive prosecution" (Bohm, 1999); the court decided to reduce their sentence significant. In this specific case, the approach of incapacitation was applied, and based upon the previous performance and professional affiliation of the convict, the sentence was relaxed. In the case entitled Booker v. U.S., the convict challenged the verdict of the court and sought appearance in front of the jury. The conflict between the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and judicial policy offered relief to the convict. It is important to state that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines have in some cases offered benefit to the convict by shortening their punishment span; however in some cases it caused "geographic and racial disparity in sentencing" (Bohm, 1999). Thus based upon the conflicts between the Federal Sentencing Guidelines against the common judicial policy under Sixth Amendment; the sentence from the court has to be uniform. The approach of incapacitation is the realistic and reasonable approach towards defendants, but in some special cases the previous judicial policy based upon the concept of retribution and deterrence, offered partial relief to the convicts. The incapacitation is the flexible approach to address the unethical and immoral issues of the society. The crime rates can be reduced by addressing the psychological needs of the criminals, not through their elimination. The constitution of United States has clearly specified that it is the responsibility of the government to offer relief and incentives to its citizens, and it is mainly the failure on the part of the government to offer such relief to the public which has then emerged in the form of crime and abuse. MODULE-6 Constitutionality of the Death Penalty In 1947 the court validated the concept of death penalty. The case of Willie Francis emerged as basis for death penalty. During the proceedings, the court confirmed that the punishment shall be cruel; the "cruelty must be inherent in the method of punishment". The Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the constitution were interpreted to legal provision of death penalty. It was in 1960s when the legality of the death penalty was challenged. This punishment was then regarded as "cruel and unusual punishment", therefore its validity was challenged under Eighth Amendment. The negation of the death penalty was confirmed through constructive and mild interpretation of the Eighth Amendment which stated that the nature of punishment shall maintain "evolving standard of decency that marked the progress of a maturing society". The constitutionality of the death penalty was therefore deterred under Eighth Amendment. The legality of the death penalty was under discussion in cases entitled Witherspoon v. Illinois and U.S. v. Jackson. In case U.S. v. Jackson, the court was reluctant to pronounce the sentence of death penalty, and stated that such punishment can be allowed based upon recommendation of the jury. However the defendant had the right not to approach the jury therefore the possibility of death penalty was diminished; the court however ruled that this practice of death penalty "was unconstitutional". In case Witherspoon v. Illinois, based upon insufficient evidence presented by the prosecutor, the request for death penalty was rejected. In 1972, the legitimacy of death penalty re-emerged, and it was the case entitled Furman v. Georgia in which the death penalty was regarded as "arbitrary and capricious sentence". The Supreme Court then voted in the favour of suspension of the death penalty, the judges insisted that death penalty was against the spirit of the constitution and violation of Eighth Amendment. The judiciary in majority voted against the imposition of death penalty. However, under the court verdict of Furman case it was specified that only under "specific death penalty statutes were unconstitutional", thus the states had the right to reinterpret and revise their death penalty statues. The legal community which favoured the death penalty sought the incorporation of new statutes to legitimate the death penalty sentence; the intent of such constitutional reforms was to "end arbitrariness in capital sentencing". In certain states, the legislation was introduced which encouraged death penalty sentence upon confirmation of capital crime; however this amendment was opposed by the Supreme Court. The states then revised their amendments, and offered discretion to the judge and jury to convict under death penalty on requirement basis. These amendments introduced "sets of aggravating and mitigating factors in determining sentencing" (Schabas, 1997). Such provisions were approved by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in its rulings of cases entitled Gregg v. Georgia, Jurek v. Texas, and Proffitt v. Florida validated the revised policy for death penalty. The similar court negated its previous ruling and confirmed that death penalty is the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court evolved revised strategy for handling the case; it urged the judges and jury to handle the cases in two steps. Under first step, the judge and jury should confirmed that nature of the crime, and confirm whether the defendant is guilty of capital crime. In another step, the court should open trail for debate on whether the defendant should be awarded death sentence, or debate upon any other form of punishment. The constitutionality of the death penalty is still debatable. The sentence of the death penalty and its application on the type of cases is still unclear. The Supreme Court is often sought clarity whether to relate the capital murder punishment with the death penalty, clarifications like whether death penalty is a legal sentence for other non-murder crimes. The court is often sought clarity on the application of the death penalty on type of the case, and condition of the defendant. In the cases entitled Atkins v Virginia, where the accused Atkins was confirmed as mentally retarded defendant; the court validated that the sentence of death penalty is unconstitutional for this specific case. Based upon the sentence of the Supreme Court the mentally retarded convicts have clearance against death penalty (Schabas, 1997). In another case challenging the verdict of death penalty on under-18 convict, the jury rejected the death penalty conviction. In the case titled Roper v Simmons, the defendant was found accused of murder however based upon his age the court reversed the previous decision of death penalty, the court stated that "it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty" (Thomas, 2004). As per the law, the criminals have to be punished, and the nature of the punishment shall be substantial enough to influence the mental and physical capacity of the accused. The death penalty is a verdict is based upon the concept of retribution, therefore as the judiciary has diverged towards the concept of incapacitation and deterrence; it is the responsibility of the state and judiciary to ensure that every convict is given an opportunity to survive, even under harsh circumstances. The final verdict shall be based upon the historic record and other factors. In modern world, the concept of death penalty is adopted upon verification of the indulgence of the convict in murder crimes, responsible for human right violations. The death penalty has been given religious fervour in certain American states. The life and death have been prescribed by God, and therefore imposition of death penalty by the court is therefore regarded as immoral. This argument has been often referred in the courts, however the similar argument holds true for victim murdered by the convict. The practice of death penalty now has constitutional cover under specific conditions. The death penalty is based upon the religious belief of “an eye for an eye”, historic evidence suggest that this law was in practice during Roman Empire, and was effective in impacting the overall behaviour of the people towards society, therefore if specific legislation is successful in transforming a change then it should be given required constitutional cover and acceptance. References 1. W. Schabas. The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law. Cambridge University Press. 1997. 2. Fact Sheet: The Impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing. Department of Justice. March, 2006. 3. R. Bohm. Deathquest: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Capital Punishment in the United States. Anderson Publishing. 1999. 4. Thomas Campbell. Separation of powers in practice. Stanford University Press. 2004. Read More