Introduction
Sentence refers to jail-time or a prison term with a specific time range that is based on the verdict of a judge or jury to a convict in a court of law. The term is usually founded upon punishments that are set by the state law or the Federal law where a federal crime has been committed. In technical terms, the term is decided within the nature of the crime committed and takes into considerations fines, community service, restitution and probation in-grained to the offender, (Roberts, 2003, p. 19). Sentences are normally based on the nature and the extent of the crime committed by the offender. Sentence extends upon special jurisdictions in that a sentence can be suspended, concurrent or consecutive. Therefore, the statute of jurisdiction within which a crime is committed determines the penalties to be imposed by the court.
Sentencing structure in the U.S. is classified into three distinct sentence structures, namely; Indeterminate, Determinate and Mandatory sentences.
Indeterminate Sentences
Indeterminate sentence consists of a specified range of years where the term to be served by the offender must fall within the prescribed range and at the same time, the parole board often holds hearings during that range to determine when the convict will be eligible for parole. The judges or the jury are guided by a minimum and a maximum term that can be imposed to the convict depending on the crime committed as well as the magnitude of the crime (JCA, 2009, p. 33). For example, the legislative might set a sentence of 2 years to 10 years for a burglary crime. This means that the offender cannot be imposed to a term that is less than 2 years nor can he serve a term that is more than 10 years. Therefore, most of the jurisdictions that use this sentencing method are guided by statutes that are specific on the minimum and maximum terms at the same time allowing judicial discretion to fix actual sentence within those limits.
Pros of Indeterminate Sentences
It has a specific range of time (minimum and maximum term). This eases the judge’s or jury’s work of fixing the sentencing term to the convict. In case the crime committed is extensive, it gives the judges flexibility in setting the highest possible prison time and vice versa. The prisoner is eligible for parole as long as the minimum term has been served. It benefits the convict for he is considered to be sick rather than bad. Therefore, it seeks to safeguard the personal liberty of the convict as well as his economic usefulness.
Cons Attributed to Indeterminate Sentences
The basic purpose of this type of sentence is to personalize/individualize the interest of the offender. This indicates that the focus is on the needs of the convicted rather than the society’s well being in terms of protection. This type of sentencing is also biased towards racial and gender discrimination because the judges’ flexibility in fixing a term within the prescribed range-term where they can fix a term that is either in favor or in disfavor of the convict. The sentence is limited to persons convicted for minor crimes. Its jurisdiction is not geared towards major offenses that are liable to death penalty or life imprisonment and those that are of treason, piracy, habitual delinquents and conditional pardon in nature (BLL, 2011, p. 1).
Determinate Sentencing
Determinate sentencing is built upon sentencing guidelines for mandatory minimum and enhanced sentences for certain crimes committed. According to Tanry (1999), sentencing guidelines are a set of standards that seek to define parameters for trial judges to follow their sentencing decisions. This gives the judges ample space within which to pass on their jurisdiction for they are in a position to look into, evaluate and at the same time, consider the individual’s circumstances of a case upon determining a sentence/a prison term.
The sentence is founded and based upon stringent laws that are geared to address crimes which are of a major concern to the society such as selling of hard drugs (crack & cocaine).
The offenders convicted under this sentence are set upon a term that has a fixed term of years where the maximum time is decided upon by the law/legislature (JCA, 2009, p. 26). For example, if the law provides 15 years for robbery then the judge can sentence the offender for 12 years if he is a repeat offender or a lenient 5 years for a first felon offender. Therefore, judges have within themselves a distinct level of power and flexibility within judicial discretionary decision on the term to be served by the offender.
Pros Attributable to Determinate Sentence
The guidelines act as recommendations to judges who are ruling upon serious cases. The guidelines are designed to reduce racial and gender disparity, discrimination and biases. The laws are tough on serious crimes such as crimes related to hard drugs. People who commit crimes within this ternate are aware of the consequences and judgment of similar crimes is set upon guidelines that are timeless and fixed.
The sentence is deemed to possess great fairness because judges have little discretion.
Cons Attributable to Determinate Sentence
They are seen to be sometimes harsh on small crimes at the same time not considerate of the prisoner’s personality liberty as well as recovery levels. There is no guarantee of parole to the offender since the parole board is not in close collaboration with the judges/ jury. It is seen to be racial and discriminatory on some aspects like in the case where the federal law was greatly criticized for disparity in punishment on possession of crack versus cocaine. The Federal Sentencing Committee was therefore forced to revise the guidelines (Tanry, 1999, p. 11)
Mandatory Sentencing
Mandatory sentencing is applied on the boundaries provided for and limited by law. The sentence stipulates a definite period of time that a convicted person must serve regardless of the nature of his circumstances. It therefore seeks to draw general strict terms on different specific crimes. According to Siegel (2010), mandatory sentencing is a statutory requirement that a certain penalty is set by the legislature/law and carried out in all cases for a specified offense or on a series of offenses.
In some states within the U.S., the legislation has provided that cases such as drug trafficking and violent crimes are prohibited from probation (Siegel, 2010, p. 462)
Pros Attributed to Mandatory Sentencing
It seeks to limit the judicial discretion especially where the judge may be compelled to dispel judgment based on racial or gender basis. It has been able to eliminate gender and racial disparity, biasness and decimation on grounds that it has definite sets of terms for any crime committed. It is seen to reduce crimes and is fair to criminals for it ensures there is uniformity in sentencing. It is geared to avoiding crimes from potential or new offenders because of the certainty of their sentences within the crimes they may wish/want to commit.
Cons Attributed to Mandatory Sentencing
The sentence holds that judges have stripped off their discretionary powers thus inflexibility in imposing prison terms to varying cases. It also eliminates the individualized character of the convict. This can lead to a detrimental term which is inconsiderate in respect to the prisoner. For example, a prisoner may have stolen a pizza and been jailed for 25 years for that crime (Roberts, 2003, P. 3 – 41).
Conclusion
Indeterminate Sentencing is of specific deterrence in nature. This is because it is individualized and focuses and evaluates the offenders’ individual circumstances upon committing the crime before issuing out the prison term. The fact that the sentencing is personalized based on the offenders’ interests vis-à -vis the society, qualifies it to be specific deterrent in nature. Determinate Sentencing can be seen to hang on the balance between general and specific deterrence. This is because the judge’s ability to evaluate the individual circumstances before imposing a sentence is more on the specific deterrent arena whereas the guidelines are meant to unify sentences shows that it is also a general deterrent sentence. However, it is more general deterrent than specific deterrent because a judge’s discretionary power is limited and its focus tries to emphasize the public domain to prevent future occurrence of such crime. Mandatory Sentencing on the other hand is general deterrent since the sentencing is meant to discourage the same crime happening in future and is more focused to the general public as opposed to the individual convict.
Reference List
Book Laws Literature (BLL). (2011).Two Types of Criminal Deterrence. Book Rags. Web.
Judicial Conference of Australia (JCA). (2009). Judge for yourself: A guide to Sentencing in Australia. Judicial Conference of Australia. P. 3 – 41. Web.
Roberts, J. (2003). Public Opinion and Mandatory Sentencing: A Review of International Findings. University of Ottawa. P. 1 -26. Web.
Siegel, L. (2010). The Nature of Crime, Law and Criminal Justice. Google Books: Wad Worth Carnage Learning. P. 450-512. Web.
Tanry, M. (1999). Sentencing and Corrections: Reconsidering Independent and Structured Sentencing. Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections Papers. No.2 P. 1-11. Web.