I will pay for the following article The Disparity In Sentencing In The Criminal Justice System. The work is to be 2 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.


I will pay for the following article The Disparity In Sentencing In The Criminal Justice System. The work is to be 2 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page. The disparity in sentencing in the criminal justice system. In the mid 1970’s a remarkable burst of reforms (Walker, p. 112) were introduced whose main concern was about disparity and discrimination in sentencing. The indeterminate sentence was the main focus of the reform efforts. The sentence in which the offender received a minimum or maximum sentence and the date of release was decided by the parole board is known as indeterminate sentence. Under such sentencing the judge was to decide about the punishment by not only looking at the crime but also looking at the circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation. On the basis of this judgment the parole board was to decide the date of release. Discretion was distributed amongst not only to the justice officials but also the parole board. The result of this process was: “A system of sentencing in which there was little understanding or predictability as to who would be imprisoned and for how long” (Bureau of Justice Assistance, p. 6). Both the liberal and the conservative boards challenged the reforms. The liberal presented an argument that the intensity on of the punishment should not rest with the criminal officers or the parole board because they may have racial issues. While the conservative board argued that the punishments given to criminals were too lenient. Their arguments bolstered by the findings of research demonstrating that most correctional programs designed to rehabilitate offenders and reduce recidivism were ineffective (Martinson). After a few initial missteps the federal government and states adopted the determinate proposal. One of the most restrictive systems is the California’s determinate sentencing this was adopted in 1976. It classified offenses into four categories of seriousness and established a presumptive sentence, an aggravated range, and a mitigated range for each category. The system of determinate sentencing adopted in Illinois gives the judges all the rights to decide the punishment. In 1977 the legislation enacted and decided some punishments based on the severity of the crime for example class X offences (excluding murder) had punishments from six to thirty years. In some of thestates the parole board also played a role that whether a person should be released or not. Later the parole board was excluded from this decision and the release completely depended upon the behavior and criminal record of the offender. Presumptive and voluntary were some of the other reforms which were made for sentencing. The movements towards the presumptive reforms started in the 1970’s and it was adopted in many states. But however, most jurisdictions eventually abandoned voluntary guidelines in favor of determinate sentencing or presumptive sentencing guidelines. The National Research Council’s Panel on Sentencing Research characterized the sentencing decision as “the symbolic keystone of the criminal justice system” adding that similar cases should be dealt in a similar way and the aim of punishment should be improving the behavior of the offender and racial or other issues should be kept aside.Reference:1. www.google.com2. http://law.jrank.org/pages/2052/Sentencing-Disparity-Sentencing-disparity-sentence-reform.

I will pay for the following article The Disparity In Sentencing In The Criminal Justice System. The work is to be 2 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.


I will pay for the following article The Disparity In Sentencing In The Criminal Justice System. The work is to be 2 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page. The disparity in sentencing in the criminal justice system. In the mid 1970’s a remarkable burst of reforms (Walker, p. 112) were introduced whose main concern was about disparity and discrimination in sentencing. The indeterminate sentence was the main focus of the reform efforts. The sentence in which the offender received a minimum or maximum sentence and the date of release was decided by the parole board is known as indeterminate sentence. Under such sentencing the judge was to decide about the punishment by not only looking at the crime but also looking at the circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation. On the basis of this judgment the parole board was to decide the date of release. Discretion was distributed amongst not only to the justice officials but also the parole board. The result of this process was: “A system of sentencing in which there was little understanding or predictability as to who would be imprisoned and for how long” (Bureau of Justice Assistance, p. 6). Both the liberal and the conservative boards challenged the reforms. The liberal presented an argument that the intensity on of the punishment should not rest with the criminal officers or the parole board because they may have racial issues. While the conservative board argued that the punishments given to criminals were too lenient. Their arguments bolstered by the findings of research demonstrating that most correctional programs designed to rehabilitate offenders and reduce recidivism were ineffective (Martinson). After a few initial missteps the federal government and states adopted the determinate proposal. One of the most restrictive systems is the California’s determinate sentencing this was adopted in 1976. It classified offenses into four categories of seriousness and established a presumptive sentence, an aggravated range, and a mitigated range for each category. The system of determinate sentencing adopted in Illinois gives the judges all the rights to decide the punishment. In 1977 the legislation enacted and decided some punishments based on the severity of the crime for example class X offences (excluding murder) had punishments from six to thirty years. In some of thestates the parole board also played a role that whether a person should be released or not. Later the parole board was excluded from this decision and the release completely depended upon the behavior and criminal record of the offender. Presumptive and voluntary were some of the other reforms which were made for sentencing. The movements towards the presumptive reforms started in the 1970’s and it was adopted in many states. But however, most jurisdictions eventually abandoned voluntary guidelines in favor of determinate sentencing or presumptive sentencing guidelines. The National Research Council’s Panel on Sentencing Research characterized the sentencing decision as “the symbolic keystone of the criminal justice system” adding that similar cases should be dealt in a similar way and the aim of punishment should be improving the behavior of the offender and racial or other issues should be kept aside.Reference:1. www.google.com2. http://law.jrank.org/pages/2052/Sentencing-Disparity-Sentencing-disparity-sentence-reform.

Be the first to reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.