Frieson?. For the first issue, “Does the three-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, set out in section 99(2), violate section 12 of the Charter?” , Judge Oullette differentiated between the intended purpose behind Parliament’s mandatory minimum sentencing and the sentencing objectives. Bill C-10 was created in order to place a stop to handguns, drug trafficking, and gang violence.
The purpose of the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act was to address some key issues in the criminal justice system, primarily focusing on sentencing practices. Firstly, this Act aims to reduce sentencing disparity, minimizing inconsistencies between different judges and jurisdictions. Before this, judges had significant discretion in sentencing, which of course resulted in their own beliefs and biases impacting their decisions and vastly different sentences for similar crimes and offenders. Secondly, it addressed perceptions of leniency from judges and standardized sentencing practices to try to ensure that they were reflective of the severity of the crime committed. Thirdly, elected officials wanted to demonstrate a strong stance on crime and
The financial penalties for not doing the right thing create a strong incentive that the bail bond agent can use to make sure the offender follows the rules. Since the bond lowers recidivism, it keeps the people safe because the offender won’t do criminal activities, otherwise the offender returns to custody. O'Brien: 1) The Reform of Mandatory Minimums can be better than the Conditional Early Release
When a judge is considering sentencing to convict an offender specific deterrence should be more valuable than general deterrence but both are needed in the sentencing process. For the offender not to reoffend specific deterrence need to be embedded to determine the certainty of the crime. So the offender will not commit the same crime twice. Overall doing the sentencing process the judge have the right to use this offender specific deterrence to promote general deterrence to the public. This will allow other to fear the consequences and possibly punishment if they commit this specific crime.
Three-Strikes Law It is my intention to establish a relationship between the three strikes law and retention rates of prisoners incarcerated for low level offenses. Before I begin to discuss the three-strikes law, it is imperative that I give some background information on sentencing guidelines. During the 1970 's the incarceration sentences imposed were indeterminate, meaning the judge had the discretion to sentence an offender on a case by case basis and sentencing a person to state prison or county jail was supposed to be to rehabilitate that person so he/she could re-enter society. Often time’s prisoners were sentenced to different amounts of time for similar offenses.
Indeterminate sentences are imposed with the individual criminal in mind. A minimum and maximum sentence such as 3-5 years are given by a judge. After the minimum sentence is served, the length of incarceration may vary based on the prisoner’s level of cooperation with the correctional agency. Early parole may be granted for good behavior. Determinate sentences are a fixed term of incarceration.
2 In recent years, mandatory sentencing laws have been introduced in NSW. Alcohol related violence mandatory sentence was introduced by the NSW government On 21 January 2014. This was introduced because of the amount of one-punch hits while intoxicated. Teens such as Thomas Kelly and Daniel Christie have been killed because intoxicated people for no reason hit them.
The idea behind this legislation was that they should get time reciprocal to the crime, adult time for adult crime, but
The purpose of the United States Sentencing Commission is to “establish sentencing policies and practices for the federal criminal justice system that will assure the ends of justice by promulgating detailed guidelines prescribing the appropriate sentences for offenders convicted of federal crimes.” (Mustard 289) When it comes to the sentencing process, data is collected about the individual’s offense and criminal records to determine the offense level and criminal history score. Once they find those two scores that then indicate a range of sentence lengths. With certain circumstances, the judge can depart from the guidelines and issue a sentence that either exceeds the maximum or falls short of the minimum required by the guidelines. Once the sentencing range is determined, courts must adhere to the following constraints: “In determination of the sentence to impose within the guideline range, or whether a departure from the guidelines is warranted, the court may consider, without
In the early 1980s, the United States declared an all-out war on drugs and over the past several decades the United States of America has traveled down a dark road when it comes to sentencing for drug offenses. One of the major tools that they used in this war on drugs is the mandatory sentencing laws. These laws were enacted in 1984 to help combat and get violent drug dealers off our streets. What these laws did was set a mandatory minimum sentence that stated if you are arrested for fifteen or more grams of crack cocaine, you would be charged as if you had five hundred grams of powder cocaine thus getting you a minimum of a ten year sentence in prison. If you are arrested for growing 100 marijuana plants under these draconian laws, you would be charged as if you were possession of 100 pounds of marijuana which carries a minimum of a five-year
For example, the parole and supervised release committee must take into consideration the victims opinion when considering a offenders release, thus limiting the boards ability to use it’s discretion on what they may be a more appropriate release date. The goals of the victim-witness program could also potentially limit the prosecutions ability to prosecute the offender for a longer sentence. For example, a victim could potentially want to forgive the offender for the harm they have been cause, therefore, seeking for a more lenient sentence then the prosecution may be seeking, thus constricting the prosecutions
Introduction Crime, its punishment, and the legislation that decides the way in which they interact has long been a public policy concern that reaches everyone within a given society. It is the function of the judicial system to distribute punishment equitably and following the law. The four traditional goals of punishment, as defined by Connecticut General Assembly (2001), are: “deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation.” However, how legislature achieves and balances these goals has changed due to the implementation of responses to changing societal influences. Mandatory minimum sentences exemplify this shift.
Should mandatory sentencing options exist for most crimes? In my opinion, mandatory sentencing should be given to those who commit crimes like murder, rape, Robbing. Compare to small crimes like small possession of drugs to disturbing the public places. A crime like those should be given probation or sent to a program to help them learn about their mistake they made, in the sense that they can learn from it. So, to be honest I feel like only certain kind of crime should have mandatory sentencing and not be so harsh with the little crimes that people do.
Sentencing disparity within the American Judicial system is a problem that exists across the nation. According to Merriam Webster’s dictionary, disparity means the markedly distinct in quality or character. Many times, disparity is used in conjunction with discrimination as if the two words mean the same, but they do not. Disparity will include a difference in treatment or outcome but is not based on an opinion, bias or prejudice.
These law makers must properly asses this bill and the affects it will have on prisons systems, individual offenders, and the crime rate. All offenders should not be generalized and sentenced according one law because every circumstance is different. We must restore our faith in the appointed criminal judges that they will do everything within their power to administer the law appropriately and fair based on evidence and intent. Overturning mandatory minimum laws starts with knowing a few specific details. These details include: what mandatory minimums are and what brought about their start, knowing what classification of offenders are affected by the laws and if it is warranted for the offense, the number of inmates incarcerated currently that are serving mandatory minimum sentences, and the impact mandatory minimum laws have on the prison systems.
