Sentencing - Assignment Example

Sentencing of Introduction Sentencing is a form of penalty that is ordered by the court once a defendant is prosecuted in a court of law. Sentencing in some states is at times pronounced by the juries but in most states it is pronounced by a judge. This also applies to all federal courts. Sentencing is usually pronounced at sentence hearing for very serious crimes committed, after the prosecutor and the defendant have presented their arguments regarding penalty (Ashworth, 2010). However for other offences which are not considered as major then it can be pronounced either before or after conviction.

Sentencing has four major goals which are deterrence, punishment, rehabilitation and incapacitation. A sentence can include a decree of imprisonment, a fine or other forms of punishment against the defendant who has been convicted of crime. Consecutive sentences are usually for defendants who have been convicted for a series of multiple crimes. In this case the imprisonment will be equivalent to all the offences put together. On the other hand a concurrent sentence is whereby a defendant maybe charged with a several crimes and they will be required to serve this sentences one after the other (Griset, 1991).

They will serve a certain amount of time for one criminal charge and the same will happen for the others. A concurrent sentence can be sometimes prompted by a judge’s leniency, if they have a clean criminal record, if a defendant remains cooperative throughout the legal proceedings or if by chance they enter a plea bargain. It should be noted that sentencing is considered to be one of the most exacting tasks undertaken by judges and should at all times reflect a number of considerations (Stanley, 2012).

Proportionality refers to a certain principle in law and covers two concepts which in some way are related. The principal was derived from the German Law and first affected the Europe Law on some case in 1960. The principle of proportionality specifically means that any measure affecting basic human rights taken by public authority must be reasonable, necessary and appropriate in order to achieve objectives. The principle protects against the extensive use of legislative and administrative powers (Suzanne, 2011).

It is a rule considered to be one of common sense where any given authority is required to only act to the scope required to fulfill objectives. Death penalty is a capital punishment and has been in practice for quite some time although with time some states have abolished the application of this form of punishment for offenders as they consider it as the ultimate cruel, inhuman and most degrading punishment. As much as some states may choose to carry on the punishment there exists some groups of people who can in one way or the other be exempted from death sentence.

This falls in suite with the Supreme Courts constitutional regulations on capital punishment. Such people who can be exempted are the juveniles and the mentally retarded persons (Troy, 2009). Take for example a man who is not in his right sense of mind walks into a room and finds a gun at his disposal. As another person enters the room he pulls the trigger and that person falls helplessly on the ground. Unlike Malice a fore thought this man had no intentions of killing. If he was to be questioned then he is actually in no position to explain what happened he might not even be able to tell what happened and therefore if he is to be sentenced then there will have to be leniency either by the jury or by the judge on the bench (Am J Psychairty, 1971).

According to the sixth amendment, all accused are entitled to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the State and the respective districts where the crimes are believed to have taken place. They should be fully informed of the nature and cause of their accusations. This right however arises only after a defendant has been formally accused. The defendants must receive a notice in form of either an indictment or information of any criminal accusations that have been lodged against them (John, 1994).

Prior to any formal accusations the government has neither any constitutional nor statutory obligation to investigate or accuse suspects. Also, the accused may not be subjected to trial, convicted or sentenced for a crime that materially varies from the crime that was presented in the formal charge. The felony murder rule is one of the most persistently and widely criticized features of the American law. It has been assumed by many that this doctrine had long prevailed as the common law rule in England and was not in cooperated into America up until independence.

Felony murder rule may have grown out of the notion that unintended harms that result from the doing of an awful act should be severely punished (McCarthy, 2008). The felony rule states that when another person dies in the process of committing a crime then the person responsible for the crime will be charged for murder. For example when someone steals a car without any form of violence buy in the process of getting away, knocks down someone then he will be prosecuted for a felony murder (Binder, 2008).

This doctrine is practiced by forty six states including Connecticut, California, Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, New York Rhode Island and several others. Conclusion Sentencing is a statutory recommendation that is carried out once the defendant has been found guilty of the crime that they are reported to have committed. According to the nature of the crime committed the penalty will vary and also based on the level of the crime such as a first second or third degree murder (Ashworth, 2010). Also there are special groups of persons that can be exempted in the sentencing for murder since we have seen that it is still being practiced in some states.

People on insane minds and the juveniles stand the chance of being sentenced to other relevant forms of punishment other than death sentences. With amendments in the constitutional law on crime, defendants are entitled to some rights such as a speedy trial and rights to be made fully aware of what they have been accused of. Not all states have the same meaning of laws. An example being the Felony rule which has different interpretations all over and thus, leads to the different forms of judgment that can be pronounced on the accused.

This rule induces felons to take greater care to avoid accidental deaths when committing felonies (McCarthy, 2008). It will also force them to optimally adjust their overall criminal activity, reducing total number of crimes committed. Persons committing felonies will be fully held accountable in case of any death and will never be considered as accidents. Again on the other hand it can be argued differently that felony murder does not reduce but rather increase crime rate. However no empirical tests have been made on these predictions on the effects of the felony murder rule on crime rates.

References Am J Psychairty. (1971). Dangerousness and the Civi Committment of the mentally ill: some public policy considerations. The American Journal of Psychaitry, 501-505. Ashworth, A. (2010). Sentencing and Criminal Justice (5th ed.). United States of America: Cambrige University Press. Binder, G. (2008). The Culpability of Felony Murder. The Notre Dame Law Review, 83(3), 965. Elliis, P. (2012, November 26). Time Lists. Retrieved from Your Bill of Rights: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2080345_2080344_2080380,00.

html Griset, P. L. (1991). Determiate Sentencing: The Promise and the Reality of Retributive Sentencing . United States of America : State University of New York Press. King Troy, R. (2009). Cumberland Law Review, 39(3), 597. McCarthy, K. E. (2008). OLR RESEARCH REPORT. United States of America: Cambridge university Press. Mitchelle John, B. (1994). REDIFINING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT. Southern Carlifonia Law Review, 1215. Stanley, T. B. (2012, November 26). Patterns of Sentencing. Retrieved from Youth Justice Board: http://www.yjb.gov.

uk/publications/Resources/Downloads/PatternSentencing.pdf Suzanne, U. (2011). Proportionality; Constituitional Rights and Limitations. Journal of Law and Philosophy, 30(3), 253-272.