Effects of Mandatory Sentencing on Victims - Research Paper Example

 Effects of Mandatory Sentencing on Victims Countries across the globe observe different legal systems that provide variant provisions against crimes. Criminal activities cut across cultural, social, economic, religious, and political boundaries, and there are laws that account for the respective underlying crimes. Crimes attract punishments by law, ranging from serving time in prison to payments of fines by offenders. One of the many forms of punishments employed along this line is mandatory sentencing. A given magnitude and extent of crime attracts a fixed punishment that is clearly outlined by law. In most cases, the punishment entails a minimum jail term or a specified amount of fine. Juries and judges impose mandatory sentences in accordance with the applicable legal provisions, and in most cases they have little or no control over these provisions (Gaines &Miller, 2012). As a result, they have to act and make decisions that are fundamentally informed by law. Mandatory sentences have different effects on different victims. This is due to the fact that these sentences vary according to the magnitude and extent of crime committed. Conviction and punishment of offenders, therefore, vary relative to the sentences that match the crimes committed. The common denominator is that these sentences have direct or indirect effects on victims.One of the effects of mandatory sentencing on victims is the correctional aspect that these sentences carry (Barkan&Bryjak, 2011). The sentences are designed and meant to induce corrections to the victims. In other words, they are used to make criminals shy away from crimes at a later date after serving their sentences. Victims of mandatory sentencing go through psychological hardships after their conviction. The fact that mandatory sentences outline the minimum and/or maximum punishments for various crimes provides for a scenario where the offender is jailed for life, or fined an amount that he or she cannot afford. In some instances, the sentences provide for either a jail term or fine, or both. Victims of these sentences undergo psychological suffering especially in the extreme cases where they are jailed for life of fined hefty amounts of money that they cannot even afford. Social integration of convicts after serving their terms have often been a challenge in diverse social settings. There are myriad crimes that hold mandatory sentences, and the variations in sentences depend on the magnitude of crimes committed. The offended public often regards convicts as an unwanted part of the society. Victims who serve their terms and are eventually released face substantial reintegration challenges. Rejection by family and the society at large is an effect that can be highly attributed to mandatory sentences. Mandatory sentences create a sense of responsibility among some victims, while others use them as a source of their exacerbated urge for crime. They are those that feel they are rightfully punished, while others regard such sentences as unfair and inconsiderate. As a result, these sentences divide victims into responsible and irresponsible categories. The implication of this is that mandatory sentences can act as correctional measures to some victims, while others view them in a totally different perspective. Therefore, mandatory sentences fail to create certainty among victims. Hefty fines are commonly part and parcel of mandatory sentences especially in crimes that involve monetary lawsuits (Fattah &Parmentier, 2001). The effect of this form of a sentence is that it impacts on the economic status and economic potential of the victim. Raising the required fines as an alternative to avoid a jail term might surpass the capacity of the victim, forcing the victim to result to the help of the family and relatives. This influences individual self-esteem and dignity, tailoring it to the negative side if the victim has to be assisted. On the other hand, if the victim can afford to meet the fines, this can act as a life changing encounter. This is relation to crime deterrence and crime prevention. Mandatory sentences that allow victims to regain their freedom in one way or another sensitize these victims against criminal activities. In other words, they deter victims from engaging in criminal activities as well as preventing the occurrence of crimes. However, this may not always be the case. There are instances where victims of mandatory sentences have continued to engage in crime even after being convicted. This can depict an aspect of ineffectiveness of mandatory sentences in one way or another. Mandatory sentencing causes victim incapacitation in the sense that the imposed sentences contain offenders to capacities that they cannot commit further crimes. More often than not mandatory sentences have victims serve jail terms for a specified period of time. The effect realized in this respect is that mandatory sentencing incapacitates its victims (Gaines &Miller, 2012). Their freedom is substantially curtailed and they cannot enjoy complementary rights other than basic rights. Doing so allows victims to reflect on their personal lives and subsequently make decisions pertaining to their families and the society, which can be negative for pessimistic victims and positive for optimistic victims. There are instances where mandatory sentencing provides an informative ground for the victims. These sentences bring vast information to the attention of the victim, allowing the victim to learn more about crimes and punishments that are related to the crime the victim is convicted for. In other words, mandatory sentencing provides victims with legal information that is new to them, or information that is of a higher extent than they previously held. The underlying implication in this respect is that this form of sentencing creates a learning experience for most if not all victims. Fairness, unfairness, justice, and injustice in sentencing are two critical aspects that victims of mandatory sentencing remain divided about. Due to the fact that mandatory sentences are essentially based on specific crimes, prosecutors work on fitting criminal activities into specific modes that are compatible with the mandatory sentencing system. In this respect, mandatory sentencing has different impacts on individual victims’ view of fairness and unfairness, justice and injustice. While there are some offenders who hold that they are fairly and justly convicted, others hold that the system is unfair and unjust (Tonry, 2011). Mandatory sentencing acts in the way of serving justice against crimes committed. In so doing, the victims still hold their fundamental basic rights as both humans and citizens of a country. The effect realized herein is that although the victims are held as convicts under mandatory sentences, they still hold the right to enjoy convict rights and opportunities that are provided by the system and form of punishments that they are held under. These opportunities can vary from one correctional facility to another. Victims of mandatory sentencing are provided with an opportunity to better their lives while serving their terms. Most correctional facilities allow convicts to continue and/or advance their education across high school and college.Others are voluntarily put through training sessions for the specific things that interest them in their lives. Over and above this,there are victim-specific services that offered to the victims by professionals. The most common service in this line is anger management for victims that get aggravatedover insignificant issues (Siegel,2011). In this respect, mandatory sentencing works towards the development of its victims amid their plight under mandatory sentences. Criminal activities are punishable by law for the purpose of promoting cultural, social, religious, economic, and political sanity in a country. Mandatory sentencing is provided for by the legal system, which ought to serve justice to its people. There are divided debates on the appropriateness of mandatory sentencing, but it is often likely than not mandatory sentences enhance justice across societies. The effects of mandatory sentencing on victims vary from one victim to another, but it is clear that there are both positive and negative effects of mandatory sentencing. References Barkan, S. &Bryjak, G. (2011). Fundamentals of Criminal Justice: A Sociological View. New York: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Fattah, E. &Parmentier, S. (2001). Victim Policies and Criminal Justice on the Road to Restorative Justice: A Collection of Essays in Honor of Tony Peters. Leuven:Leuven University Press. Gaines, L. &Miller, R. (2012). Criminal Justice in Action. New York: Cengage Learning. Siegel, L. (2011). Criminology. New York: Cengage Learning. Tonry, M. (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Criminal Justice. Oxford:Oxford University Press. Read More