Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on judicial sentencing
Five goals of sentencing in criminal justice
Essay on judicial sentencing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on judicial sentencing
Five goals of sentencing in criminal justice
Essay on judicial sentencing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on judicial sentencing
The appointment of judges has become clearly political. It is not uncommon to hear of candidates making statements with regards to contested political issues as well as the use of partisan language. According to (Bannon, 10) “For neutral arbiters, this heightened political temperature risks exacerbating pressures to decide cases based on political loyalty or expediency, rather than on their understanding of the law.” The selection of judges through popular election therefore suffers serious flaws since the electorate tend to base their decisions on charm instead of serious determinants. The results can be that the person elected as a judge turns out to be one who falls short of the glory of this office in terms of experience, legal training and education.
In a time when the Pontiac was and French and Indian war had ended, the Articles of confederation was established. The Articles had weakened the National government and a social revolution occurred. In this context new taxes were created and a significant amount of resistance arose. Many violent protests had occurred in the 1700s, such as, the march of the Paxton boys, Shays rebellion, and the whiskey Rebellion. One significant protest that occurred in 1763 was the March of the paxton boys.
If we look at it in this light, it seems we are heading away from the rule of law and into the rule of man by the judges. Under a rule of law, the law is the highest authority and everyone in the country is under that law. The law creates a consistent standard of conduct that should be easy to understand. Under the rule of man, there is no consistency in ruling. Precedent is considered, but if the judge disagrees with the previous ruling, he can disregard it and issue the sentence or ruling that they think is correct.
President Clinton is about to select his first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the next few months, Governor Schaefer will get an opportunity to fill key vacancies in Maryland 's two highest courts. It 's a good time to rethink the criteria for selecting judges. The traditional vision of the ideal judge, long embraced by both the legal establishment and the public, is one who is ' 'detached ' ' and ' 'impartial. ' '
To begin with, the problem with having the people elect their judges is that the citizens know next to nothing about who they are voting for. Of course, it is important the people have a say in the decision-making, but the fact of the matter is that not everyone is an expert in government. Candidates have no problem in persuading the people that the other candidate is evil and corrupted and not suitable to serve. Furthermore, it is difficult to learn how well a judge preforms his or her job once they are put into office. Why?
Offenders don’t realize the reality when reentering society because they aren’t giving the necessaries resources. The reality is how the criminal justice system have label them. When an offender is release from prison their life is over due to the way the criminal justice have develop. Many would concur that there is a problem with strength based. As clearly demonstrated there will always be pros and cons towards an issue.
In America, judges have become too politicised . The government in power for example could be republican. They might appoint a judge who aligns with their political view and policy, causing that judge to interpret the constitution in such a way that allows the government to get away with something or may change rulings on a right. An example of this polarisation is the famous Bush v Gore case in 2000. In this case, a recount of votes in counties in Florida had not been undertaken, as was required due to the low majority.
When people think of a good judge they typically think of somebody who is fair, not bias and has some sort of experience. However, in today’s society, particularly in the United States, our judicial selection methods are not made to select judges on their ability to reason well and rule impartially (Carter and Burke, 6). On top of that, judges have no actual training before they become part of the judiciary. The only training they receive is in school when they are studying the law. Sometimes when they pursue an apprenticeship with a judge they also get a little bit more experience or insight into a judge’s job.
Currently, California uses term limits for assigning state judges. Judges can be removed by a Committee on Judicial Performance and must run for election every 6 years. The recent scandal of Justice Clarence Thomas being “treated to luxury vacations by billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow” for over 20 years highlights the need for reform to the Supreme Court (Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From GOP Donor). This event has further damaged the public’s perception of the Supreme Court and damages the overall integrity of the Judicial Branch. As a result, the proposal of 18-year term limits for Justices have quickly gained popularity.
As we know, there are many ways criminals can be punished. When sentencing happens, the defendant is usually sentenced to the following punishments, listed from minor to extreme: Fines Community service Diversion programs Probation GPS monitoring Jail Prison Death penalty (Rio Salado, 2022). Most of these punishments can be listed under either the utilitarian or retributive theory of punishment. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to 'deter' future wrongdoings.
I will be discussing the key facts and critical issues presented in various roles/goals within the United States (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2015). The The Various roles/goals of Sentencing within the United States. In a narrative format, discuss the key facts and critical issues presented. The various goals of criminal sentencing today are revenge, retribution, just deserts, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation or reformation, and restoration (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2015). The first is revenge.
There has been an exceedingly high increase in the population in federal prisons. “The Federal prison population has grown by 750 percent since 1980 and our Federal prisons are approximately 30 percent over capacity” (). We are overflowing our prison cells with criminals of all degrees. We need Smarter Sentencing to keep people from have long drawn out sentences and crowding up our cells for people who actually need to be there for that amount of time. Over capacitated cells are actually ridiculous.
Sentencing Sentencing occurs after a defendant has been convicted of a crime. During the sentencing process, the court issues a punishment that involves a fine, imprisonment, capital punishment, or some other penalty. In some states, juries may be entitled to determine a sentence. However, sentencing in most states and federal courts are issued by a judge. To fully understand the sentencing phase of criminal court proceedings, it is important to examine how sentencing affects the state and federal prison systems, learn the meanings of determinate and indeterminate sentencing, and understand the impact Proposition 57 has had on sentencing in California.
We enjoy our ability to exercise our rights in the voting booth. With that in mind, electing judges serves the will of the people and makes us feel as though we have a measured amount of control over the judicial system. This requires judicial candidates to expose their lives to public scrutiny and represent their voting pool. Conversely, appointed judges would have an easier time concealing truths about themselves that they would prefer the public not see. Favors among close circles of officials are likely easier to be traded in secret.
Today our justice system has a multitude of options when dealing with those who are convicted of offenses. However, many argue that retributive justice is the only real justice there is. This is mainly because its advantage is that it gives criminals the appropriate punishment that they deserve. The goals of this approach are clear and direct. In his book The Little Book of Restorative Justice, Zehr Howard (2002), illustrates that the central focus of retributive justice is offenders getting what they deserve (p. 30).