The Sentencing Process in America - Essay Example

Justice System Should the sentencing process be changed? Why or why not? The sentencing process in America not only requires change, it is also being brought under change from various forces. The primary force amongst them is the overcrowded nature of the prison system which is simply unable to handle the load of prisoners which are sent to it through the justice system. For some states such as Nevada, the prisons have become so full that “many are resorting to double-bunks and placing inmates in trailers (Bellisle, 2007, Pg. 1)”. Essentially, prisons and the justice system have four central goals in terms of their operations. They are supposed to deter individuals from committing crimes, they are supposed to incapacitate those who are likely to commit crimes, bring about the process of rehabilitation and finally, to punish those who do not follow the laws of society. However, as discussed by Bellisle (2007), the sentencing system in America seems to focus more on the idea of incarceration and putting people in prisons rather than on rehabilitation and allowing them to become productive members of society. The courts hand out sentences to eighty thousand criminal defendants every year and the number of those who go into prison are far more than those who are released (Richey, 2005). Sentences handed out by courts simply put people away for long periods of time while not looking at the impact it would have on the prison system or even the nature of their crime. Many violations of the law come with mandatory minimum sentences and these sentences can be as long as 10 years for some drug offenses. Instead of allowing a judge to come up with a reasonable idea for how long a person should be put away for smoking marijuana illegally, the laws give mandatory minimum sentences which have to be followed (Bellisle, 2007). The sentencing process could be improved drastically if the judges are trusted to establish their own criteria for punishments equivalent to the crime. Of course, it can be argued that race and ethnicity can creep into the issue when judges are allowed to have a lot of discretion with regard to sentencing but that issue can also be monitored by the higher courts to ensure that the sentencing remains fair and transparent. Undoubtedly, the transparency of the justice system is also hurt by the idea that prosecutors may manipulate the accused to get plea bargains and thus avoid trials in the first place (Murphy, 2004). In certain situations, the laws not only cause the crime to be enhanced in a crime, they may even double the minimum time which is mandated by the law. For example, if a robbery is committed in Vegas where a deadly weapon is used, the minimum sentence is automatically doubled. In essence, for the same crime a person would be incarcerated for double the period. While this system and the sentencing system appears to be tough on crime and is supposed to make the people safe, crime levels still remain high. The only thing the sentencing system seems to be tough on is the budget and the idea of minimum sentences. Discuss the relationships of the prosecutor in the justice system. As described by Hamilton and Word (1973), despite the importance of the prosecutor s/he “is often forgotten in the discussions of the criminal justice system (Hamilton and Word, 1973, Pg. 183)”. This is because the justice system is often limited to the police, the courts and the corrections facilities. However, in terms of the role played by the prosecutor, s/he has to be viewed separately because the function of the prosecutor and the role played by him/her makes the prosecutor more than a government functionary. In fact, the prosecutor “represents a separate and equal branch of government which is intended to be independent of the court (Hamilton and Word, 1973, Pg. 183)”. The role of the prosecutor is to bring evidence relevant to the case and make a presentation before the court where the court can evaluate the evidence to give a decision regard the guilt or innocence of a person. In essence, the prosecutor, the defense and the court itself are all working towards the same goals of seeking out the truth and serving the cause of justice but the directions they take may be different. With regard to the role of the prosecutor with the accused, the prosecutor is supposed to bring evidence that leads to a conviction but the cause of justice is also to protect the innocent. The rights of the accused therefore, have to be upheld by both the prosecutor and the courts themselves as that is the relationship which the prosecutor has with the accused. While the court remains a passive arbitrator between the prosecution and the defense, the prosecutor has to be an active participant in the justice system. This idea of being an active participant also gives a lot of power to the prosecution since in many situations; the power to get plea bargains and confessions may give the prosecutors the ability to avoid trials altogether (Murphy, 2004). Such methods have been questioned and may even be considered unethical by some but that is the responsibility which comes with the power of being a prosecutor. Just as the defense has the right to not take up cases based on their analysis of the case, the prosecutor also has the right to not “accept passively as his workload every matter that is presented to him. He can screen out matters referred to him by police agencies that fail to meet his standards and priorities (Hamilton and Word, 1973, Pg. 183)”. This makes the role of the prosecutor quite strong since s/he can choose which cases to take up depending on the evidence which has been gathered with regard to the case itself. Finally and perhaps most importantly, the prosecutor can initiate and guide investigations towards issues which s/he thinks have value therefore his role towards the police becomes that of an advisor and consultant. Works Cited Bellisle, M. 2007, ‘Sentencing process needs revamping, justices say’, [Online] Available at: http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070214/NEWS07/702140343/0/NEWS Hamilton, W. and Work, C. 1973, ‘The Prosecutors Role in the Urban Court System’, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 183-189. Murphy, S. 2004, ‘Sentencing process flawed, judge says’, [Online] Available at: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/06/26/sentencing_process_flawed_judge_says/ Richey, W. 2005, ‘Court orders changes in sentencing’, [Online] Available at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0113/p01s02-usju.html Word count: 1,078 Read More