It can be challenging to determine whether multiple-time offenders should be treated in the same manner as first-time offenders. Answering that question requires a clear understanding of the law itself and its purpose. According to the Consensus theory, the laws “express societal values regarding what is right and wrong and are created to prohibit deviant behavior” (Harr et al., 2017, p. 32). Therefore, the law does not divide first-time offenders and multiple offenders – it divides right and wrong. There is no difference in the law regarding who committed a crime: they should be judged and punished to achieve justice for people whom that law is supposed to protect. The law was created by society for society, and a criminal offender remains a criminal offender despite the number of times they have committed a particular crime.
However, first-time offenders and multiple offenders may be treated differently in court depending on the specificities of the case. For example, if the case is controversial and the judge has to make a difficult decision, or the police do not have enough evidence to prove the suspect guilty. They may consider the person’s criminal history an additional factor contributing to the decision-making process. According to the Due Process Model, which is grounded on the presumption of innocence, the rights of an individual “are not to be sacrificed for the sake of efficiency” (Harr et al., 2017, p. 33). The criminal justice system needs to hold onto the presumption of innocence, and it is much more likely to work for first-time offenders than multiple offenders. However, though the criminal justice process may vary, the law itself should remain the same for everyone. A first-time offender may be treated differently when they are only a suspect, but once they are convicted, the law should treat them the same as multiple offenders.
Reference
Harr, J. S., Hess, K. M., & Orthmann, C. H. (2017). Constitutional law and the criminal justice system (7th Edition). Cengage Learning US.