Public Policy and Sentencing Guidelines
In California, the sentencing guidelines for burglary and murder are set forth in the states Penal Code. Burglary is defined as unlawfully entering a structure with the intent to commit a crime, and murder is defined as unlawfully killing another person with malice aforethought. The sentence for burglary depends on the severity of the crime, but can range from probation to up to six years in prison. For murder, the sentence is either life in prison without the possibility of parole, or 25 years to life. These sentencing guidelines are based on the seriousness of the crimes and are intended to deter would-be criminals from committing them. However, the specific sentence that is imposed in each case depends on a number of factors, including the severity of the crime, the age of the victim, and the criminal history of the offender. In general, the Guidelines recommend a life sentence for first-degree murder, with a minimum of 25 years to life for second-degree murder. For burglary, the Guidelines recommend a sentence of 2 to 6 years for first degree burglary, and up to 3 years for second degree burglary. However, these are only guidelines, and the final decision about sentencing is up to the judge in each individual case.
Adult vs. Juvenile Offenders
In California, the sentencing guidelines for adult offenders and juvenile offenders differ for the crimes of burglary and murder. For burglary, an adult offender can be sentenced to up to six years in prison, while a juvenile offender can be sentenced to a maximum of three years in juvenile detention. For murder, an adult offender can be sentenced to 25 years to life in prison, while a juvenile offender can be sentenced to a maximum of 10 years in juvenile detention. These differences are based on the fact that juveniles are deemed to be less culpable than adults for their crimes. Therefore, they are given lighter sentences as a way to rehabilitate them rather than punish them. Additionally, juveniles are also more likely to be released from detention before they reach the age of 18, whereas adults typically remain in prison for the entirety of their sentence.
California vs. Kentucky
In Kentucky, as in all states, there are different sentencing guidelines for adult offenders and juvenile offenders. For example, the maximum sentence for burglary if the offender is an adult is 20 years, but if the offender is a juvenile, the maximum sentence is only 5 years. Similarly, the minimum sentence for murder if the offender is an adult is 25 years, but if the offender is a juvenile, the minimum sentence is only 10 years. There are a number of factors that account for these differences in sentencing guidelines. These sentencing guidelines appear to be comparable to the guidelines in California and suggest a relatively equal view on crime. However, Kentucky is not a Three Strikes Law, and it is not nearly as big or diverse as California. Yet, like in California, juveniles are typically viewed as being more capable...
…in deterring crime. Overall, the data provides strong support for the Three Strikes Law as an effective tool for reducing crime and protecting public safety.Change Proposal
The Three Strikes Law is a controversial piece of legislation that has been in place in the state of California since 1994. The law imposes lengthy prison sentences on offenders who have been convicted of three felonies, even if those felonies are non-violent in nature. The law was originally enacted with the intention of cracking down on repeat offenders and keeping dangerous criminals off the streets. However, the law has come under criticism in recent years for its harsh penalties and disproportionate impact on minority groups.
Now, there is a push to reform the Three Strikes Law in California. Supporters of reform argue that the law is outdated and that it disproportionately affects non-violent offenders. They also point to the high cost of housing inmates who are serving long prison sentences under the law as another reason for change. Opponents of reform argue that the Three Strikes Law has been successful in reducing crime rates and that any changes to the law would jeopardize public safety. The debate over the future of the Three Strikes Law is sure to continue in the months and years to come.
One proposal that could address this issue is to establish a policy for restorative justice instead of three strikes and youre out justice, i.e., retributive justice. Johnson et al. (2015) have shown that restorative justice is even more effective at reducing recidivism, and it could help…
References
Johnson, T., Quintana, E., Kelly, D. A., Graves, C., Schub, O., Newman, P., & Casas, C. (2015). Restorative Justice Hubs Concept Paper. Revista de Mediación, 8(2), 2340-9754.
LAO. (2005). Retrieved from https://lao.ca.gov/2005/3_Strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm
Lluis. (2020). California 3 strikes law. Retrieved from https://www.lluislaw.com/california-3-strikes-law/
Miranda. (2020). Three strikes. Retrieved from https://www.mirandarightslawfirm.com/three-strikes/#:~:text=Voters%20enacted%20the%20%E2%80%9CThree%20Strikes%20law%20in%20response,to%20life%20for%2026%20hours%20and%20finally%20died.
Juveniles In basic terms, handling juvenile offenders remains the key purpose of juvenile courts. Hence these courts are designed not to punish but to treat and guide. However, though juvenile courts have been in operation for over a hundred years, some juvenile offenders still find themselves being tried in adult courts. The question that arises in this case is; should juvenile offenders go through the same criminal justice system as their
Juvenile offenders have grown to become a serious problem in many countries, especially the United States. Like adult offenders, juvenile offenders are more likely to reoffend, especially without the proper guidance and assistance they need in order to live a law abiding life. Research within the last five years has led to identification of specific program models as well theory-based intervention approaches that not only assist juvenile offenders in leading
Juvenile Offenders, an Intervention Analysis The challenge of juvenile offenders, what prompts them into crime and what factors contribute to the repeat of same misdemeanors that led them to the juvenile prison are issues that have for long attracted protracted discussions and even detailed researches. There has been little attention however given to the possible role of mentor programs in keeping the young people off crime. This research proposal hence looks
Crime Juvenile Offender in Hong Kong Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Offender in Hong Kong The increase in juvenile delinquency has become a world-wide phenomenon, especially in many developed countries. This trend is also evident in cities like Hong Kong and can be seen in a recent report which asserts that the age of juvenile offenders in Kong is getting younger. This study by Pang (2008) states that, "Some juvenile delinquents are now as young as
Missouri has seen a rise in African-America juveniles tried as adults. Statistics from 2009 state 64% of the juveniles tried as adults were of African-American descent. This is almost double of the amount in 2001 which was 36%. (Cooper) This brings to light an increase in racial disparity and the nature of prosecution in Missouri. Many of the cases of the African-American juvenile offenders certified as adults are prosecuted in
juvenile offenders' ability to understand their legal rights and one issue related to their ability to participate effectively in their own defense. Ability to understand legal rights: Competency Ability to participate effectively in their own defense: Treating juveniles differently According to U.S. criminal law, part of the right to counsel includes the notion that a defendant must be able to participate in his or her defense (Sandborn 2009: 137). However, schizophrenics, persons
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now