Criminal sentencing can easily be a conversation for the next one hundred years; the reason being that everyone has a different view of the topic. Sentencing philosophies, or the justifications on which various sentencing strategies are based, are manifestly intertwined with issues of religion, morals, values, and emotions (Schmalleger, 2019, p. 351). There are many different types of alternative sentences, such as breathalyzer devices, house arrest, lectures/classes, and weekend jail, just to name a few. Then there is the matter of the characteristics of the offender. Other scholars have argued that the tendency to excuse a person of responsibility simply because that behavior has identifiable physical causes is fallacious because, in reality, all actions are ultimately physically determined (Allen, Vold, Felsen, Blumenthal-Barby, & Aharoni, 2019). In my opinion, if you do the crime, you should have to do time.The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 created the U.S. Sentencing Commission (“Commission”) and authorized the Commission to promulgate sentencing guidelines (Truesdale, 2017). As this act has been revised from time to time, there has been a set sentencing range to make sentencing more equal across for board. One example is a mandatory minimum sentencing law that forces a judge to hand down a minimum prison sentence according to the crime. Another topic to look at about criminal sentencing would be more about the trial judges. We turn our focus to how one particular judicial characteristic–a judge’s sex–might affect judicial behavior in criminal defendant sentencing decisions (Boyd and Nelson, 2019). In my opinion, some judges may still give different sentences due to race, religion, and gender preferences. But the punishment should fit the crime. No two people should get the same sentence, especially if its one persons first offense and the other person tenth. The Bible says in Colossians 3:25, For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.ReferencesAllen, C. H., Vold, K., Felsen, G., Blumenthal-Barby, J. S., & Aharoni, E. (2019). Reconciling the opposing effects of neurobiological evidence on criminal sentencing judgments. PLoS ONE, 14(1), e0210584. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/A570139285/AONE?u=vic_liberty&sid=AONE&xid=0eb87e1dBoyd, Christina L., and Michael J. Nelson., (2019)”The Effects of Trial Judge Gender and Public Opinion on Criminal Sentencing Decisions.” Vanderbilt Law Review, Nov. 2017: 1819+. Business Insights: Global. Web.Schmalleger, F., (2019). Criminal justice today: An introductory text for the 21st century (15th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Truesdale, M. (2017). PRO-PROSECUTION DOCTRINAL DRIFT IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING. Northwestern University Law Review, 111(4), 1131-1166. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1929030846?accountid=12085
https://academichomeworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/logo-300x75.png 0 0 admin https://academichomeworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/logo-300x75.png admin2021-08-10 06:24:412021-08-10 06:24:41https://qualityhomeworkanswers.com/sociology-homework-help-387-2/
We are a professional writing service that provides original papers. Our products include academic papers of varying complexity and other personalized services, along with research materials for assistance purposes only.