When it comes to sentencing offenders there are many options that the judges, lawyers, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission should take into account before coming up with set rules and regulations (Miller & Wright, 2005, p.370). As stated in the video for this week when Officer David Barnett talks about how some judges are under the notion that they are the primary person to make waiver on how long a person must serve time, as well the saying making a person do the time for the crime that they have committed. Even though no punishment can fit the crime that they have done because justice is different for each person. But when it comes down to making the decision it should be based on the person criminal record that does include juvenile record, who was effected by the crime; that could mean the community, a person or persons, or was it …show more content…
For instance, we should take those who are first time offenders and fine them while having mandatory public service, while we look at repeated offenders who have a minor charge and put them on house arrest with the fine while having to do supervised public service. Now when talking about those who are convicted of a more serious charge the Sentencing Commission should imply a reasonable sentencing through evidence, criminal record, and who was effective by the crime, while still making them pay fines as well. Which can be indicated by the three strikes and you’re out mentality (Ashworth, 2005, p.207). Now for those who are a reoccurring offender that when the Judges should imply a harsher sentencing to recidivism, deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution (Miller & Wright, 2005,