Sentencing Is Unjust

Sentencing disparity within the American Judicial system is a problem that exists across the nation. According to Merriam Webster’s dictionary, disparity means the markedly distinct in quality or character. Many times, disparity is used in conjunction with discrimination as if the two words mean the same, but they do not. Disparity will include a difference in treatment or outcome but is not based on an opinion, bias or prejudice.

(INTRODUCTION)Did you ever have a love one who was innocent but still served time for no reason all because he or she was in the wrong place at the wrong time or just the main suspect of a crime because he or she fit the description a witness provided. I go to a school in West Fargo and I’m a junior haven’t really seen unjust in my life to anyone I know. But read multiple articles on unjust sentence to people and wrote multiple paragraphs on the cases I read 24 to be exact. The article included lawyers view the innocent victim view and also the witness view after the trail. (Reason)people are sent to jail over speculations and evidence that don't connect to the victim of the crime.

In the cases of ‘Coker V. Georgia’ and ‘Kennedy V. Louisiana’ a very important question was brought up; does the death penalty constitute for cruel and unusual punishment in regards to the rape of an adult woman or child? Most people can attest to rape being one of the most egregious criminal acts, but how do we keep a fair punishment, and not lose sight of the reasoning in our eighth amendment in such cases? Case Information In the case of Coker V. Georgia, a man by the name of Ehrlich Coker, who was already imprisoned for multiple cases of rape among many other offenses, escaped prison and raped again along with several other unsavory acts. He was sentenced to death for his post-escape rape.

In 2010, the US Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) which reduced the sentencing difference between offenses for crack and powder cocaine. Many people in law enforcement believed that there is more violence associated with a crack cocaine crime, rather than a powder cocaine offense. Due to the increasing amount of reports and cases of aggressive offenses, Urban Leaders in America allowed the sentences of the crime to be extended because of the violence in a drug trafficking offense. In the article, “Data Show Racial Disparity in Crack Sentencing” by Danielle Kurtzleben, states that, “The figures for the 6,020 powder cocaine cases are far less skewed: 17 percent of these offenders were white, 28 percent were black, and 53 percent were

So in a nut shell, every state has its own set of rules for the punishment of criminals called sentencing guidelines, which are sentencing policies prosecutors and judges use for people convicted of serious misdemeanors and felonies (Peak,2015). The crime and the criminal 's previous criminal history is considered when a judge hands down a sentence. People that oppose alternative sentencing argue that an individual 's circumstances are unique and should be considered during sentencing, otherwise there is a possibility of

From 1990 to 2010, the percentage of foreign-born individuals in the United States population has skyrocketed from 7.9% or (19,767,316 individuals) to 12.9% of the population (or 39,955,854 individuals), and has received attention from researchers seeking to examine the link between immigration and decisions made by government representatives and officials (Wu and D’Angelo, 2014, p. 58). In the article “Unwarranted Disparity in Federal Sentencing: Noncitizen Crime as a Social/Group Threat”, Jawjeong Wu and Jill M. D’Angelo broadened the scope of this field by being the first researchers to look into citizenship as a factor using multilevel analysis (Wu and D’Angelo, 2014, p. 59). In their study, Wu and D’Angelo (2014) found that cross-level

It is assured that the fundamental purpose for our criminal law is to prevent crime, punish offenders, assist and protect. However, there are abounding cases where criminal law has punished a convict who was proved innocent . A conviction is necessary to display the order they obtain to keep people safe in society. If a criminal was not caught the people would look down upon the system. In many cases, the deputy will arrest an individual who seems to fit a certain description that they know will lead to an arrest.

When a crime is committed, the offender must receive some sort of punishment, whether it be jail time, a fine, or something else. Subsequently, they should be able to get back to their life once they complete it. However, this generally isn’t the case. In Cecelia Ahern’s book, Flawed,” society is built on the idea that if a person does something considered “wrong,” whether illegal or not, they should be branded as “Flawed” and forced to live under separate rules from the rest of society, despite not receiving legal punishment. This treatment of “Flawed” people is akin to the treatments of people who are labelled “accused” and “felons” today.

Chapter 2 Article 2: Obama: ‘Much of Our Criminal Justice System Remains Unfair’ It should come as no surprise to most to discover that numerous people commit crimes on a daily basis. That being said, some might ask themselves, what happens to criminals after a crime has been committed? Chapter two of the textbook, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System by J. Scott Harr, Karen M. Hess, Christine Orthmann, and Jonathon Kingsbury discusses a detailed overview of the United States legal system. According to the textbook the main motivation for establishing the U.S. legal system was to create behavioral boundaries for its citizens (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 31).

So as not to punish an offender too harshly, the legislation may be drafted to decrease the sentence. This ensures that the society remains supportive of the justice system because when a sentence is delivered and it is unduly harsh or unduly lenient, the public may feel that the justice system has failed and that justice has not been served

The punishment fits the crime. That statement conforms to the ideas of a system know as retributive justice. Retributive justice is rooted in proportionality. This means that a punishment should be to the same degree of ones sin. This system appeals to me personally because it avoids giving people the chance to seak revenge.

Justice is a concept that is fundamental to a functioning society. On some level, every person craves it. Revenge, equity, compensation; the meaning of justice differs from person to person, which is why we as humans have created the criminal justice system to attempt to streamline this process. Consequently, this has resulted in less room for nuance within the system. Although this arrangement seems sufficient on the surface, there are countless fundamental flaws that prevent it from working as intended.

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).

In Rawls’ paper, “Two Concepts of Rules”, he sheds light on fact that a distinction between justifying a practice and actions that fall under said practice, must be made. This distinction, according to Rawls is crucial in the debate between Utilitarianism and Retributivism, more specifically in defending the Utilitarian view against common criticisms, which will be addressed further in this essay. This essay will be examining the troubling moral question that Rawls addresses; The subject of punishment, in the sense of attaching legal penalties to the violation of legal rules. Rawls acknowledges that most people hold the view that punishing, in broad terms, is an acceptable institution. However, there are difficulties involved with accepting

There is a worldwide trend in the use of penal imprisonment for serious offenses as capital punishment has been renounced by an increasing number of countries. Harsh punishments include capital punishment, life imprisonment and long-term incarceration. These forms of punishments are usually used against serious crimes that are seen as unethical, such as murder, assault and robbery. Many people believe that harsher punishments are more effective as they deter would-be criminals and ensure justice is served. Opposition towards harsh punishments have argued that harsher punishments does not necessarily increase effectiveness because they do not have a deterrent effect, do not decrease recidivism rates and do not provide rehabilitation.