Introduction
Social crimes are as old as human race. To maintain social justice and ensure that the entire population is safe; governments maintain a criminal justice system. One form of crime is stealing others identities for monetary personal gain. This is a criminal offense and the court should punish the offender, however before imposing a sentence a judge must consider some factors to ensure that the sentencing given is just and meets its intended aim (Duckett & Schinkel, 2008). In this paper, I will analyze specific information that would be important to know before imposing a sentence to an offender in a case of stealing others identities for monetary gain and measures to put in place to ensure that correction goals of retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restitution.
Point to Consider
Criminal justice procedure consists of a set of legal and social institutions mandated with the duty of enforcing criminal laws that exist in a particular country. It aims at maintaining social order, and punishing the offenders. The system has three main players; law enforcers, courts, and corrections (Eastvedt, 2008). Before a punishment has been imposed on a convicted person (in the case of stealing others identities for monetary gain), the materiality and the danger caused by the act is the first thing that should be considered. If the pain that was felt by the offended is huge then the sentencing should be prolonged and stricter.
It is important to listen to the offender’s intention after taking the money in question; if he were taking them for a noble reason (like food) and approval for the same given, then my sentencing will not be very harsh. However, the amount taken should be proportional to the need. For example, if the offender claims that he did the act to obtain food, but he got away with millions of dollars, then this is not a valid reason to consider.
I would consider negligence by the victim, if the victim had not taken care of his documents that facilitated the crime, and then I would put this into consideration.
I would also consider the period that the crime has taken as well as the number of people involved. If the crime has been planned for a long period, then punishment should be higher and stiffer. If it were as a result of a chance and only involve one person, then the punishment should be a bit lenient (Bailey, 2006).
Sentencing is a form of punishment aimed to retribution, incapacitate, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restitution.
Retribution
This is ensuring that vengeance has been done. The offender should be made to pay for all damages that the victim underwent. He should also remain behind bars for a period proportional to the “weight” of the crime.
Incapacitate
This means that offender’s freedom of movement is limited. This will assist as a punishment, and as a way to stop another such crime that the offender may have been planning. I will ensure that the accused will spend some time in prison.
Deterrence
A sentence is supposed to deter occurrence of a future crime. To do this, I will give a sentence long enough to make the offender feel the pain, and one that the public will find stiff. This is off-course in consideration of the case at hand.
Rehabilitation
Sentencing is aimed to change the behavior of an offender; to do this I will ensure that I recommend counseling lessons to the offender, as he serves his jail term.
Restitution
After a sentencing period, the offender has to get back to the society. To be able to integrate back again in the right way, I would recommend that canceling be given to the sentenced individuals (Turner, 2007).
Conclusion
A judge must consider some factors before pronouncing a sentence to an offender. In case of stealing others identities for monetary gain crime, the judge considers the magnitude of damage caused on the victim, the level of preparation and any ignorance for the victim. For an effective sentencing then, the sentence involved must consider the following correction goals; retribution, incapacitate, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restitution.
Reference List
Bailey, E. (2006). Personal Crimes. Web.
Duckett, P., & Schinkel, M. (2008). Community psychology and injustice in the criminal justice system. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18(5), 518-526. Web.
Eastvedt, S. (2008). Criminal justice ethics: a view from the top. American Jails, 22(5), 61.
Turner, C. (2007). Ethical Issues in Criminal Justice Administration. American Jails, 20(6), 51.