Legal Issues in Criminal Justice

Critical Legal Issues in Criminal Justice
CJ500 Unit 9 Project
Brenda Colbert

September 26, 2011

When it comes to the criminal process, it typically ends when a defendant is found not guilty. However, in retrospect, it does not end whenever a defendant is found guilty, and that is for three primary reasons: 1) the accused must be sentenced; 2) the accused can and often does appeal their conviction; and 3) in the event that the accused’s appeal fails to succeed, the U.S. Constitution provides for them the right to habeas corpus, which is a method of challenging the constitutionality of one’s confinement (Worrall, 2010). However, for the basis of this article, the focus will be placed on issues relating to generalized sentencing as well as the impact of the controversial subject of sentencing guidelines. When it comes to generalized sentences, regardless of the length of time imposed, all are considered to be goal oriented, which means they have a specific goal to be had when being handed down to an offending party. All in all, there are four primary goals of sentencing: * Rehabilitation/Reformation: Rehabilitation is a goal of sentencing that consists of a planned intervention intended to change behavior (i.e.; drug treatment); it is based upon the premise that by changing the behavior of an offender they may be “molded” back into a contributing member of society (Worrall, 2010) . Reformation is based somewhat on the same premise with the difference being that the behavior of an offender may be changed if through the stigma of shame associated with punishment they are able to come to “see the error of their ways (Renter, 2008).” * Retribution: Retribution is a goal of sentencing that is concerned with punishing offenders based upon the severity of their crimes (i.e., offenders “get what they deserve”) (Worrall, 2010). * Incapacitation: The aim of this goal of sentencing is to remove a criminal from society, so that they may not be given the opportunity to commit a crime again (Worrall, 2010). Incapacitation includes imprisonment, as well as the ultimate incapacitator, capital punishment (Renter, 2008). * Deterrence: This goal is concerned with punishing offenders such that they and others will be discouraged from committing crime. There are 2 subtypes of deterrence: 1) specific deterrence, which refers to what it takes to discourage the offender from committing additional crimes, and 2) general deterrence, which refers to what it takes to discourage all would-be offenders from committing crimes (Worrall, 2010). Whether these goals of sentencing are effective remains in question, especially being that there has never been concrete proof that any of them have served to reduce the occurrence of crime. And, taking into consideration that our prisons are becoming more and more overcrowded only adds to the speculation that these goals are based more upon theory than they are on fact. However, they remain to serve as the foundational goal of our criminal justice system and will most likely continue to be for the foreseeable future. But, the goals of sentencing are not the only thing to consider when it comes time for an offender to be sentenced; it also must be determined what type of sentencing will be imposed. Primarily, there are four types of sentences; 1) indeterminate sentencing, which gives the judge the authority to set the sentence; 2) determinate sentencing, which permits the judge to set the sentence with the stipulation that the sentence cannot later be altered by a parole board; 3) mandatory sentencing, which takes discretion away from judges, therefore making the sentence to be set according to the laws, and not the judge; and 4) sentencing guidelines, which are a set of state and federal rules used to set sentences based on offense severity and the offender’s prior record, with some guidelines achieving to strike a balance between determinate and indeterminate sentencing (Worrall, 2010).
And, last but not least to consider is that just as in any phase of the criminal process, convicted criminals are able to enjoy a certain amount of constitutional rights during the sentencing process. However, the Supreme Court has drawn a sharp distinction between the constitutional requirements applicable to the guilt/innocence stage of the trial, and those applicable to the sentencing phase. Although a few of the constitutional rights traditionally associated with the trial of criminal cases apply at sentencing, the Court has held that many others do not (Net Industries, 2011). At the very least, a convicted criminal is afforded the following constitutional rights during the sentencing phase: 1) protection against double-jeopardy as provided by the Fifth Amendment; 2) entitlement to a reasonable amount of punishment for his or her crime in relation to the severity of the crime; 3) the right to participate in the sentencing process (with the possible exception of misdemeanor sentencing); 4) the right to have counsel present; and 5) the right to have the judge to ignore past convictions that were obtained in violation of the right to counsel (Worrall, 2010).
However, since the induction of sentencing guidelines there have been many questions raised as to whether or not a convicted individual may be able to fully have his or her constitutional rights fully afforded to them when being subject to sentencing under sentencing guidelines. Under the US Sentencing Guidelines, developed over the last two decades, a points-based, grid-like system authorizes a judge to set a sentence based on aggravating factors which are not decided by a jury during trial or admitted to by a defendant in a plea agreement, such as in the volume of commerce in an antitrust offence or in the leadership role of a defendant played in an alleged conspiracy or criminal organization. Nearly all federal prosecutions include one or more of such factors, but in one particular case, Blakely v Washington, in 2004, the constitutionality of sentencing guidelines was challenged and in a five-to-four decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Washington’s state sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional because they allowed a judge, rather than a jury, to consider the factors that increase a defendant’s criminal penalty (International Law Office, 2011).
And there are other issues related to the constitutionality of sentencing guidelines to consider; for example, in general, a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. The right has been extended for the jury to decide on the facts material to the crime charged. However, an issue appears when judges decide on facts other than prior convictions for administering punishment, and when a judge uses presumptive sentencing guidelines they are essentially removing the right to a trial by jury. In the most recent United States Supreme Court case addressing sentencing guidelines, the court in Cunningham v. California (2007), asked if a judge could “augment a defendant’s sentence above the statutorily presumptive middle term based on additional findings of fact proven by a preponderance of the evidence?” Here the answer was no; therefore the court struck down California’s mandatory sentencing guidelines (Sundahl, 2011). And, this will probably not be the last challenge made whereas sentencing guidelines are concerned for as where any defendant is concerned their main goal is to be handed down the most lenient sentence available to them.
But, regardless of the type of sentencing being used, a defendant is still subject to be afforded all the constitutional rights provided to them and the overall goal of sentencing is the same, which is to try as best as possible to either mold the offender back into a contributing member of society or take measures to see to it that he or she never serves to pose as risk to society ever again.

References:
Worrall, John. L. (2010). Criminal Procedure From First Contact to Appeal. (Third Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Renter, Elizabeth. (2008). The Goals of Sentencing in Today’s Criminal Justice System- Punishment and Sentencing. Associated Content. Retrieved 09/26/2011, from: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/582825/the_goals_of_sentencing_in_todays_criminal.html?cat=17
Sentencing: Procedural Protection-Constitutional Requirements at Sentencing. (2011). Net Industries. Retrieved 09/26/2011, from: http://law.jrank.org/pages/2085/Sentencing-Procedural-Protection-Constitutional-requirements-at-sentencing.html
White Collar Crime-USA-Constitutionality of US Sentencing Guidelines is Questioned. (2004). International Law Office. Retrieved 09/26/2011, from: http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.aspx?r=8739
Sundahl, Shaun E. (2011). Constitutionality of Sentencing Guidelines in America. Sundahl & Associates. Retrieved 09/26/2011, from: http://www.crimebullet.com/sentencingguidelines.php

References: Worrall, John. L. (2010). Criminal Procedure From First Contact to Appeal. (Third Edition). Renter, Elizabeth. (2008). The Goals of Sentencing in Today’s Criminal Justice System- Punishment and Sentencing White Collar Crime-USA-Constitutionality of US Sentencing Guidelines is Questioned. (2004). Sundahl, Shaun E. (2011). Constitutionality of Sentencing Guidelines in America. Sundahl & Associates