Sentencing Determinate Sentencing, Impacts, and Recent Trends

Sentencing

Determinate Sentencing, Impacts, and Recent Trends

Determinate Sentencing

Impact on Probationary Terms

Reasons for choosing mandatory minimum jail and prison sentences

Role of Mandatory Sentences in Reducing Recidivism

The legal system is reliant on two different approaches for sentencing the offenders. The determinate and indeterminate sentencing is discussed in detail. The recent trend towards determinate sentencing and their impacts are also elaborated. The reasons for choosing determinate sentencing and its role in reducing recidivism are also discussed in the following sections. The political influence on these changes has also brought it in public domain and several opinions in favor and against prevail in the ordinary public as well as the legal practitioners.

Determinate Sentencing:

The term of imprisonment is applicable for the convicted criminals in consideration with the legal requirements. The judges are entitled to impose a term for imprisonment applicable according to the legal findings and committed crime under the law. The number of years imposed by the judge is referred to determine sentence. Since 20th century the legal system incorporated the jurisdiction of judges to impose particular number of years for imprisonment. The determine sentencing was fully enacted in four U.S. states since 1977 (Neubauer & Fradella, 2010).

On the contrary through late 1970s the rehabilitation models were developed according to the correctional thinking a number of jurisdictions enabled the judges to apply indeterminate sentence. It is also referred to indefinite sentences. The state legislature incorporated determinate and indeterminate sentences in the legal system. Numerous changes in the law regarding determine sentencing, provisions for minimum mandatory sentence, and guidelines for sentencing occurred since 1970s (Neubauer et al., 2020).

Recent Trend for Determinate Sentencing:

The political intuition has changed against the determine sentencing towards the parole and indeterminate sentencing. It has created an image of justice system as soft law for offenders. The democrats and conservatives are all in favor of the determine sentencing for different reasons (Alarid & Del Carmen, 2012). The inconsistency in the sentencing system is observed and it requires a unified approach towards equaling treatment with offenders. The decreasing trend for determine sentencing has several impacts on parole and justice system (Bowman & Kearney, 2010).

Impact on Probationary Terms:

The probationary terms refer to the release of a prisoner to serve the rest of sentence under community supervision. It is based on the rehabilitation model to provide a chance for personal reform for prisoners. It has a profound impact on the prisons as it is observed that the population in prisons has increased over the past years. The role of parole officers has increased so as their workload. The parole officers cannot perform their duties accurately as the increased numbers of criminals are released on parole using discretionary powers of the justice system. A significant number of criminals do not comply with the terms of release and as a result they are again imprisoned (Bowman et al., 2010).

Reasons for choosing mandatory minimum jail and prison sentences:

There are several reasons for legislator for choosing mandatory sentencing over indeterminate sentencing. The primary reason was to create an equally balanced legal and justice system for offenders. It was also preferred to minimize discrimination for criminals. The uniformity in the justice system is essential for communities. It also provides a significant and definite reference for sentencing period according as stated by the relevant law.

The second important reason was to create an impact on the criminals that they would be sentenced for a certain period of time in case of convictions. It also helped boost the morale of ordinary public in terms of their reliance on the justice system. The legislator provided minimum level of discretion to judges in imposing sentences hence the disparity among judges was also reduced. The determinate sentencing required violent criminals to serve 85% of their sentence which influenced efforts to control crime rates.

Finally the legislator also minimized the requirements for parole and other requirements of the system arising from choosing indeterminate sentencing. The parole system required appointments of parole officers and continuous monitoring of a criminal's activities. Moreover minimum resources are required to maintain conformity of the terms on which criminals are released using the provisions of parole system. The forms of incarceration release are also according to the legal provisions.

Role of Mandatory Sentences in Reducing Recidivism:

Recidivism is termed as the personal act of an individual which is repeated even after experiencing the consequences of the similar act. The tendency of repeating the similar behavior is increased in the presence of soft legal and justice implications. The monitoring system required to maintain a qualitative degree of parole monitoring is not effective in providing the required support to uphold the system. The requirements and increased number of monitoring of criminals has not only over burdened the parole officers but at the same time it has also allowed the criminals to take advantage of the legal provisions. The notable example is the re-arrest rate of offenders in comparison with the indeterminate probationary sentences and determinate sentencing. The individuals tend to adopt the similar course after being released under the probationary sentences. The mandatory sentences however tend to effectively sever for reducing recidivism.