Punishment and sentencing: The Four Main Philosophies of Sentencing
Punishment comes as a result of undesirable acts or outcomes. When people commit an offense, they are taken to the court of law so as to determine their punishments. Therefore, punishment can be defined as an authoritative infliction of a sentence as a result of improper actions. Punishment can be in the form of two types the corporal punishment or non-corporal punishment. A punishment can be a fine, penalty, sentence or confinement. This is as per the intensity of the offense. The first philosophy of sentence is retribution. This is whereby, wrongdoers have to be punished. This is a way of the society saying it does not condemn the illegalities in the society. According to the society, they should be punished so as to condemn these unlawful acts (United States Government Publishing Office 3). This philosophy tends to punish the severity of the action (Gaines & Miller 347). The second philosophy is deterrence. This whereby, the lawbreakers are punished so as to restrain others from doing these actions. It is used to prevent others from going down that same road. The third philosophy is incapacitation. Through incapacitation, the wrongdoers are locked away hence not in a position to take part in crimes. This philosophy guarantees the community is safe from the dangers. The fourth philosophy is rehabilitation. This whereby, the offenders are put in a correction institution so as to correct their behaviors. It is known to be the most humane form of punishment (Gaines & Miller 347).
Do You Think President Obama Should Have Commuted The Sentences Of The Eight People Who Were Serving Sentences For Drug Crimes?
In December 2013, President Obama commuted the sentence of eight people who were sentenced for drug crimes. This because he felt that people involved in crack cocaine were harshly judged compared to those involved in powder cocaine (Pickler et al., para 1-3). President Obama should not have commuted the eight people of their drug crimes offenses. This is because it portrayed that he was accommodative of the drug crimes offenders. Placing harsh judgment on the wrongdoers would enable to reduce the number of drug abusers.
Do You Think President Obama Should Have Signed The Fair Sentencing Act In 2010 To Reducing Penalties For Crack Cocaine Offenses?
President Obama should not have signed the Fair Sentencing Act in 2010 to reducing penalties for crack cocaine offenses. By signing the Fair Sentencing Act, President Obama showed that he was not very keen on cleaning out drug crimes in the United States as it focused on only the current cases (Pickler et al., para 5). The United States has been the leading nation in drug crimes over the years. Harsh sentencing would help to reduce these statistics by a large figure.
What Is A Mandatory Minimum Sentence?
A mandatory minimum sentence is a judicial discretion whereby some crimes are exempted from harsh penalties. These crimes include possession of drugs or sex crimes. Mandatory minimum sentences differ from different countries. …
