Unit 3 Assignment James Hawkins Kaplan University
CJ 299-01 Professor Condron December 10, 2012
In this assignment I will define indeterminate and determinate sentencing. I will also support an argument that will be effective for addressing a crime. Finally I will summarize my assessment of the sentencing models.
Indeterminate sentencing is the legal philosophy at the appropriate period of sentencing for a crime is to hold the offender as long as is appropriate to protect the community from an offender. An indeterminate sentencing philosophy holds the prisoner should on being allowed to leave when their behavior has changed drastically that the offender who's been incarcerated no longer poses a threat.
Some pros about indeterminate sentencing are mandatory minimum sentences and keeping offenders off the streets. A con of intermediate sentencing is the sentencing of non-violent offenders to unjustly harsh prison terms where they crowd prisons that are already full.
Determinate sentencing is when the mandatory minimum sentence is enhanced for certain crimes. Sentencing guidelines allow judges to consider the individual circumstances of the case when determining sentencing. Mandatory minimum sentences leave little or no room to the judge when setting a sentence. Determinate sentence statuses have existed at various times throughout the history of the United States. These became popular in the 1980s when public concern over crime increased dramatically and the public demanded laws to address the crime population.
Some pros and cons of determinate sentencing can be mitigating circumstances. Crimes are acts that call for punishment but in varying degrees. For instance a longtime drug dealer caught with 30 pounds of heroin may deserve the long prison stay. However a casual first time user with less than 5 ounces would have to serve the same sentence 15 to life term under the recently repealed Rockefeller drug laws. In other cases and legal act may be partly justified. A child molester killed by victims parent is guilty of murder but not worthy of the same sentence as a Mafia hit man.
Criminal justice policies must be based on well‑founded theories and findings that survive scientific scrutiny. The application of scientific principles or findings to criminal justice programs that are well recognized and accepted by the discipline have more value than trial‑and‑error approaches in preventing or minimizing the onset of criminal behavior. Although biological techniques in the assessment of human behavior are still under the microscope and definitive answers have yet to surface, the foregoing description of biological foundations for behavior provides evidence of their applicability and value. The study of biological drives may also help to explain the development of specific social structures and control mechanisms (Jeffery, 1977; Pugh, 1977; Thiessen, 1976). Biological perspectives, for example, may enhance understanding of how certain control techniques employed throughout the criminal justice system, particularly in corrections, operate to further criminal activities through prisonization, crowding, dehumanization, and so forth. Use of this information in court or in policymaking can still be contested. Nevertheless, by undertaking a collaborative strategy, researchers can hope to develop more effective programs to reduce the incidence of antisocial behaviors (e.g., violence) and develop a legal system that reflects public consensus, meets human needs, and maintains an ethical and organized social structure. recently published a...