ppt chapter 3

20
Chapter Chapter 3 3 Sentencing: Sentencing: To Punish or to To Punish or to Reform? Reform? McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2013 McGraw-Hill Companies. All Rights Reserved.

Upload: difordham

Post on 08-May-2015

579 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Ppt chapter 3

Chapter 3Chapter 3

Sentencing: Sentencing:

To Punish or to To Punish or to Reform? Reform?

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2013 McGraw-Hill Companies. All Rights Reserved.

Page 2: Ppt chapter 3

3-2

Key TermsKey Terms

Sentencing: Imposition of a criminal sanction by a sentencing authority, such as a judge

Sentence: The penalty a court imposes on a person convicted of a crime

Page 3: Ppt chapter 3

3-3

Philosophy of Criminal Sentencing Philosophy of Criminal Sentencing

John Conrad: “The punishment of the criminal is the collective reaction of the community to the wrong that has been done. It is the offender’s lot to be punished.”

Social Order: The smooth functioning of social institutions, the existence of positive and productive relations among individual members of society, and the orderly functioning of society as a whole.

Page 4: Ppt chapter 3

3-4

Sentencing GoalsSentencing Goals

Revenge: Punishment is equated with vengeance.

Retribution: Paying back the victim for what the offender has done. Associated with “an eye for an eye”

Just Desert: Punishment deserved. Criminal offenders are morally

blameworthy and are therefore deserving of punishment.

Page 5: Ppt chapter 3

3-5

Sentencing Goals - Sentencing Goals - ContinuedContinued

Deterrence: The discouragement or prevention of crimes through the fear of punishment. Specific deterrence: the deterrence of

the individual being punished from committing additional crimes.

General deterrence: the use of the example of individual punishment to dissuade others from committing crimes.

Page 6: Ppt chapter 3

3-6

Sentencing Goals - Sentencing Goals - ContinuedContinued

Incapacitation: The use of imprisonment or other means to reduce an offender’s capability to commit future offenses.

Page 7: Ppt chapter 3

3-7

Sentencing Goals - Sentencing Goals - ContinuedContinued

Rehabilitation or reformation: the changing of criminal lifestyles into law-abiding ones by “correcting” the behavior of offenders through treatment, education, and training. Reintegration: the process of

making the offender a productive member of the community.

Page 8: Ppt chapter 3

3-8

Sentencing Goals - Sentencing Goals - ContinuedContinued

Restoration: the process of returning to their previous condition all those involved in or affected by crime.

Includes victims, offenders, and society.

Restorative justice: A systematic response to wrongdoing that emphasizes healing the wounds of victims, offenders, and communities caused or revealed by crime.

Page 9: Ppt chapter 3

3-9

Sentencing Goals - Sentencing Goals - ContinuedContinued

Victim Impact Statement: A description of the harm and suffering that a crime has caused victims and survivors.

Advocates of restorative justice believe Advocates of restorative justice believe not only that the victim should be restored not only that the victim should be restored by the justice process but also that the by the justice process but also that the offender and society should participate in offender and society should participate in the restoration process.the restoration process.

Page 10: Ppt chapter 3

3-10

Sentencing OptionsSentencing Options

Fines or other monetary sanctions Probation Alternative or intermediate

sanctions Incarceration Death Penalty

Page 11: Ppt chapter 3

3-11

RestitutionRestitution

Payments made by a criminal offender to his or her victim (or the court which then turns them over to the victim) as compensation for the harm caused by the offense.

Page 12: Ppt chapter 3

3-12

Types of Sentences Types of Sentences

Mandatory Sentence: sentences required by law under certain circumstances.

Consecutive Sentences: sentences served one after the other.

Concurrent Sentences: sentences served simultaneously.

Page 13: Ppt chapter 3

3-13

Sentencing ModelsSentencing Models

Flat Sentences: specify a given amount of time to be served in custody. Allows little or no variation from the time specified Common in the 19th Century

Indeterminate Sentence: specifies a fixed minimum and a maximum length. (e.g. 5 to 15) The parole board determines the actual time of release. Good time: the amount of time prison authorities deduct

from a sentence for good behavior or other reasons. Determinate Sentence: specifies a fixed term of

incarceration. Can be reduced by good time

Page 14: Ppt chapter 3

3-14

Sentencing Models – Sentencing Models – ContinuedContinued

Guideline Sentencing Voluntary/Advisory Sentencing

Guidelines: recommended sentencing policies that are not required by law

Presumptive Sentencing Guidelines Federal Sentencing Guidelines The legal environment and

sentencing guidelines (next slide)

Page 15: Ppt chapter 3

3-15

The Legal Environment and The Legal Environment and Sentencing GuidelinesSentencing Guidelines

Nichols v. U.S. United States v. Watts Edwards v. U.S. U.S. v. Cotton Apprendi v. New Jersey Blakely v. Washington U.S. v. Booker and U.S. v. Fanfan

Page 16: Ppt chapter 3

3-16

Sentencing Models – Sentencing Models – ContinuedContinued

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: The imposition of sentences required by statute for those convicted of a particular crime or a particular crime under special circumstances (e.g., robbery with a firearm or selling drugs to a minor within 1,000 feet of a school), or for those with a particular type of criminal history.

Page 17: Ppt chapter 3

3-17

Sentencing EnhancementSentencing Enhancement

Habitual Offender Statute A law that (1) allows a person’s

criminal history to be considered at sentencing or (2) makes it possible for a person convicted of a given offense and previously convicted of another specified offense to receive a more severe penalty than that for the current offense alone.

Three-Strikes Laws Ewing v. California

Page 18: Ppt chapter 3

3-18

Three Strike LawsThree Strike Laws

During the 1990s, 26 states and the During the 1990s, 26 states and the federal government enacted new federal government enacted new habitual offenders’ laws that fell into habitual offenders’ laws that fell into the three-strike category.the three-strike category.

Rationale behind the laws were Rationale behind the laws were mandatory sentences have two goals mandatory sentences have two goals – deterrence and incapacitation.– deterrence and incapacitation.

Page 19: Ppt chapter 3

3-19

Issues in Sentencing Issues in Sentencing

Proportionality: the severity of punishment should match the seriousness of the crime.

Equity: similar crimes and similar offenders should be treated alike.

Social Debt: the severity of punishment should take into account the offender’s prior criminal behavior.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities: Legislation and Sentencing

Truth in Sentencing: Requires offenders to serve a substantial portion of their sentence.

Page 20: Ppt chapter 3

3-20

Broader IssuesBroader Issues

Guideline-based determinate sentencing and restorative justice appear to be inherently at odds with each other.

A hybrid system of “restorative sentencing guidelines” has been suggested to resolve the problem.

Under the hybrid system the guidelines would not apply to lower severity offenders.