Crj 316 Criminal Sentencing Research Paper

Criminal Sentencing
Nathan McCann
CMRJ 316
January 19, 2014
Sara Spivey, M.A.

Abstract
Sentences for crimes committed have been handed down for as long as there have been crimes to commit. There are many factors to be considered by the judge tasked with sentencing in a criminal case, including an offender’s criminal history and actual involvement in the commission of the offense. First-time offenders may be grated leniency in sentencing, but it can be argued that such a practice is contrary to the nature of punishment and detracts from the effects of the crime on the victims. Punishment serves three general purposes that serve to benefit the victim, the public, and the offender: retribution, prevention, and rehabilitation.
Criminal Sentencing
The big house, slammer, the joint, and the gray bar hotel. These are all euphemisms for jail or prison. Criminal proceedings often times end in some form of incarceration, fines or restitution, or even death. The public reads in the news that another offender has been sentenced to a number of years behind bars, but how much is involved in handing down that sentence? How is the offender’s sentence determined, including what he or she must pay or how long he or she will be incarcerated? Is a first time offense considered when making the decision? And what is the purpose of going to jail and being punished for committing a crime?
When the sentencing phase of a criminal trial has begun, the judge will look at several factors when considering the sentence of a criminal offender.
The State’s Penal Code will have guidelines for maximum and minimum sentences that can be imposed for specific crimes which will help guide the judge in making his or her decision. The defense attorney can also bring up certain points on behalf of the offender that may persuade the judge to impose a more lenient sentence. Such factors may be whether or not the offender has previously served time in jail or prison, whether the offender has a relatively clean criminal history, or no criminal history at all, or how involved in the commission of the crime the offender actually was (if there is more than one defendant). There are also aggravating circumstances such as the use of a weapon in the commission of the crime that could persuade the judge to impose a harsher sentence (NOLO,
2014).
Another question posed is whether or not a person who is considered a first time offender should be entitled to a less severe sentence. Arguments can be made for and against such a practice. On one hand, one may feel that a first-time offender is less culpable because he or she has never been in trouble and may not realize the gravity of their actions in regards to their effect on the victim. A first-time offense could also be considered a lapse in judgment or normal behavior and thus would not need a full sentence to adequately punish the individual (Freer, 2013).
Those who argue against leniency for first time offenders may argue that punishment is meant for retribution and granting leniency would violate the theory that every crime has an equal and opposite punishment meant to provide said retribution. Also, a first-time offender may be one who has not been charged or convicted, but perhaps only warned. They may also be someone who simply had not been caught for criminal behavior prior to the conviction in question. The most substantial argument against first-offense leniency is that the crime was no less harmful to the victim because of the offender’s criminal history, and the sentence should reflect the harm done to the victim (Freer, 2013).
There are many reasons why an offender is punished. Generally, three concepts are considered in discussing the purpose of punishment: retribution, prevention, and rehabilitation. When one considers retribution, it is argued that the punishment should be such that the offender suffers in such a manner relative to the suffering caused to the victim, for example “an eye for an eye.” The idea of prevention is one that argues that punishment is used to prevent the commission of future crimes, either by the offender himself or by future would-be offenders. The final concept is that of rehabilitation. The punishment should be used to “fix” any deficiencies in the offender that has led him to commit crimes, thus allowing him to reintegrate with society and become a productive member of the society he previous wronged (Escamilla-Castillo, 2010).
To conclude, there are many factors that are considered when handing down a sentence to a criminal offender.
A judge will take into account the guidelines set forth by the State’s Penal Code, as well as those brought forward by the defense attorney. An offender’s criminal history, involvement in the crime, and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime will all be considered in deciding whether to hand down a harsher or more lenient punishment. An offender who is considered a first-time offender may be granted leniency or a reduced sentence, but strong arguments can be made in favor and opposition of such a practice. Finally, punishment serves multiple purposes, for the victims of crime as well as the public, and the benefit for all involved should be considered. Ultimately, the judge will review all mitigating circumstances and deliver what he or she believes to be a fair sentence for each individual
case.

References
Escamilla-Castillo, M. (2010). The purposes of legal punishment. Ratio Juris, 23(4), 460-478. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9337.2010.00465.x
Freer, E. (2013). First time lucky? Exploring whether first-time offenders should be sentenced more leniently. Journal of Criminal Law, 77(2), 163-171. doi:10.1350/jcla.2013.77.2.834
NOLO (2014). What factors do judges use in determining sentences? Retrieved January 18, 2014, from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-criminal-sentencing-works-faq-29149-4.html