The Federal Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and Social Control - Essay Example

The Federal Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and Social Control Federal sentencing reform Act (SRA) enjoys quite an eventful history of development and evolution in the United States. The mid of 20th century was characterized by a new faith in progressivism along with populism ruled the formation of law for prisoners (Brooks, 2002). Progressivism referred to expert opinion while populism was connected with public wishes and common sense. The government was primarily interested in progressivism and several rehabilitative programs were designed for prisoners to turn into useful citizens. (Rothman, 1983) By 1970s however both progressivism and populism lost their appeal as stand-alone policies (Vito & Allen, 1981). While progressives had failed to provide an alternative to indeterminate sentencing, populism was seen as something that negated the spirit of law and it was declared that, "Federal judges are not responsive to the pulsations of humanity." (Brooks 2002) These themes dominated SRA for some time and culminated in the development of Federal sentencing Act of 1984 with one primary aim i.e. to be fair in the purposes of imprisonment. The US Congress played a slight and indirect role in federal sentencing for about a century or so by vesting into the sentencing judge an unbarred discretion to figure out the appropriate punishment from usually a diverse ambit of potential sentences as been described by law. This rendered the judge to be in total control of sentencing and it was up to the judge only to envisage various aspects of sentencing the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances and how these all factors jointly contributed to the commissioning of sentence. The judicial sentences were virtually subject to no review on appeal. The underlying rationale of whole exercise was based upon "coercive rehabilitation." That invariably involved judge deciding an extensive punishment of long duration and the parole board contemplating release on the grounds of adequate rehabilitation. That whole system relied heavily on the personal discretion of the judge without much accountability. This was naturally bound to criticism as with problems caused as a result of authority wielding undeterred personal discretion and seen largely as foot loose and fancy free scenario. Congress was acutely aware by 1970s of the growing unease among the general public and pervasive problems in the judicial system that were emanating due to the lack of well defined parameters in sentence commissioning. The disparity in the sentencing system lead to a thorough evaluation by Congress in 1984 in which it was known that the whole system was in the dire need of reform and had lost the necessary credibility required to sustain the public confidence to serve as a sufficient deterrent to crime. It was concluded in that study the inconsistency and disparity in the sentencing system was due to the inadequate sentencing application by the judiciary. Congress took initiative to redress the problem by enacting the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 is also commonly stated as SRA; it drew a comprehensive outline for restructuring of judicial sentencing discretion that essentially changed altogether the sentencing in the federal justice system. The SRA's prime objective was to overcome the chasm of sentencing disparity. The first step that Congress took was to reject the prevalent view of rehabilitation as the foremost goal of sentencing. It redefined the objectivity of sentence as retributive, educational, and deterrent (Howell, 2004). By enacting SRA Congress sought to bring the whole judicial process above board ultimately helping it regain the trust of masses important to discourage crime, revitalizing the system by modifying its dynamics, curbing over dependence on imprisonment and upholding the dignity and discretion of judges faculty. The important points(USSC, 1991) of SRA could be summarized as follow: 1. There should be a clear and comprehensive statement of sentencing of federal law along with purposes. 2. A well elaborated guideline to structure and limit the exercise of judicial sentencing and corollary explained sentencing objectives. 3. To uphold justice; allowance is made to go for alternate options rather than prescribed for atypical cases. 4. It is made compulsory for judge to state the reason for specific judgment and also to cite reason for departure from the guidelines where observed. 5. A provision for appellate review of sentences imposed is crafted so as to ensure the accuracy of guidelines and reasonable justification for the departure from the guidelines. 6. Abolishment of parole. The success of SRA could be assessed through the scope of its objectives it is meant to achieve; these aims can be broadly classified into two groups, in the first group SRA focus to provide certainty and transparency in sentencing in order to diminish the needless disparity found in sentencing practice. In the second group of objectives those policies are devised and pursued that tend to decipher the purposes of sentencing based upon punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. The SRA was put in place for number of reasons and the most important of them is to remove the disparity in sentencing or at least make the departure from the normal routine more acceptable and less disputable by making it mandatory upon judges to cite reasons for the decisions they make in the context of offender's disposition, circumstances and frame of mind. This provision is important because it removed the ambiguities regarding law in the society as people were receiving mixed signals from judiciary especially when people observed difference of treatment on the same issue by different judges or to make situation even more complicated one judge would deliver different decisions in similar offences for different individuals in the name of personal discretion without having to explain. By SRA the perception of people in the society changed and it restored the confidence of people in the judiciary by making it uniform throughout and making sure that sentence awarding is not merely based on the whims of judges and this in turn creates social control that ensures no one is above the law and everyone is accountable including the people of judiciary. One important point that needs to be reiterated over here is this it's not always unfair to observe different approach of justice for offenders as long as it is reflective of the holistic picture that keeps into consideration the seriousness of their crimes or offender characteristics (Howell, 2004). This allows for such flexibility that circumspect mitigating or aggravating factors not kept into account at the time of the institution of punishments. On the front of social control this piece of legislation played an instrumental role in determining the impartial nature of law and this is an important perception that people should observe and experience because in the absence of such phenomenon a society will undergo major deterioration that will gain the snow ball effect and ultimately result into socially disorganized and disoriented society with no sense of direction and purpose. In such a society where justice system is doubted and least trusted any one can flounder with law knowing the weakness of justice system and it have implications that are not very hard to imagine. Speaking in favor of the Act, Wilkins et al. (2005) write, "the bold new approach to sentencing that is being followed today in federal courthouses throughout the United States deserves an opportunity to succeed, given its many beneficial features and the lofty goals toward which the reforms are directed." (378) A strong and well-meant judiciary is utmost important to make citizens feel secure and viable. It serves as a strong bulwark to which people can look up to with faith and security that it is one of the most strong and unbiased organ of the state that would maintain its integrity and would never falter or fail to deliver justice. These are the qualities and characteristics of justice department as an institution but the individuals holding offices can some times be the stumbling block for the society in general and people in particular so this legislation provides enough power to tie up the loose ends and bound judges to be accountable for their judgments and now they have to cite reason for their decision in black and white and this official record of judgment could be used to challenge the decision at the applet forums if deemed as inappropriate by the accused. Thus it has taken away the pretext of personal discretion from the judges and conform them to systematic guidelines of sentencing drawn by legislation. Another important social control that SRA was able to bring in the society was disparity of sentencing in the context of race, ethnicity, and gender discrimination is undermined and discouraged so as to create uniformity in laws to view the people beyond such barriers and self imposed restrictions. The very fact that different racial or ethnic groups might receive unfair treatment was part of the driving force behind for SRA and there was a need to ensure that no such prejudice was observed against any person on the account of racial, linguistic, ethnic and gender discrimination (USSC, 1991a). Thus the goal of SRA was also to safeguard the justice system by making it more fair and transparent in its dealings. This also served as a beacon for society to observe standard discretion to avoid friction among different individuals of society as America being a conglomeration of different nations finds it all the more relevant that there is harmony in society and everyone in it is tolerant and supportive of each other, it is in fact the diversity of America that unites it and distinguishes it from other countries. Another important phenomenon emergent prior to this Act was the disparity as a result of regional sentencing, the SRA was successful in addressing this problem as well by reducing inter judge and regional sentencing making it certain the uniformity of punishment and its severity. The question of achieving certainty of punishment according to the guidelines of SRA has really not been the true issue because by setting up of truth-in-sentencing through the elimination of parole helped it accomplish that automatically (USSC, 1991). However; the same objective appeared weak when defendants were able to exploit the practices of charging and plea bargaining to avoid punishment for some of the offences committed. These practices can underrate the certainty of punishment in justice system in this sense. The SRA was able to assert itself strongly by increasing sentence severity for many types of offenses and also shaped the guidelines on the use of probation and the duration of time it takes serve sentence. The SRA played a significant role in establishing social control in the society as discussed earlier it not only provided level playing field for every one but also brought them into the circle of accountability thus rendering the whole system more transparent and effective. Through it the judiciary was able revive its prestige and honor, it helped in projecting the strong impression to general public that judiciary is stronger than ever and will do any thing to serve the interests of justice. By enforcing more strict parameters and policies it conveyed direct message to anti social elements who had been exploiting the loopholes in the system before to shun their dark activities by showcasing more harsh punishments and results. In this way the crime rate in society was brought lower once every one knew the possible outcome of their shady actions. Prior to SRA the judges had primarily their own personal discretion to guide and for references they had preguidelines era that was of course not sufficient to conduct affairs of judiciary for awarding punishment, the SRA replaced that era with streamlined system of binding legal rules that indicate in advance the effect of most offense circumstances the predictability of sentences was increased. , the SRA aimed to increase the rationality and transparency of sentences by making the criminal justice more ordered and viable. The rationality was further elaborated with the advancement in knowledge of human behavior apropos to the criminal justice process and this scientific knowledge was applied to make the process less complicated more objective by developing means of investigating the extent to which the sentencing, penal, and correctional practices are effective in meeting the purposes of sentencing. Transparency was put in vogue by making it mandatory upon each judge to elucidate his point of view in an open court regarding passing of particular punishment to the offender along with the written record of these reasons. Thus the judgment will only hold true if it is backed by adequate reasoning leaving no room for personal whims to take charge and logical extension of this is it allows for further examination by appellate forums for redress of defender's grievance if decision is deemed unfair by defender, at appellate forum the defenders could use the written decision along with other evidences for their case for review of decision against them but that again should be really substantive to reverse the decision of the earlier court. As SRA primarily focused on the federal sentencing practices of criminal justice system it still has multi dimensional impact on the society. It made provisions to create awareness of realization of seriousness of the offense; and spreading the importance of respect for the law, and ensuring that no wrongdoing would go unpunished(USSC, 1991). The SRA was successfully able to underline the importance for affording adequate deterrence to criminal conduct this facilitate in placing surveillance mechanism in the society that keeps on guard against anti social elements and this vigilance by security set up plays pivotal role in establishing social control and ultimate winners of this exercise are the citizens who find increased sense of security and order in the society. The comprehensive approach of SRA could be assessed from the fact that it also deals with people who've got nothing to do with crime and court procedures but that doesn't mean SRA is not concerned with their welfare rather it explicitly advocates for their interests that those people should be kept under constant guard and supervision who were tried for offences and have had served their terms because as the famous saying goes prevention is better than cure; so is extra vigilance required to prevent any untoward incident from happening and especially not at the cost of innocent civilians. The SRA with its composite approach is not only concerned with trial and imposition of punishments on the offender but it seeks to cure or deter the factors that lead the person serving term to such a point at the first place in order to pursue these objectives necessary arrangements are done that can fill the void in the person under question and this can be brought about by offering educational training in case of person's mental caliber permit or vocational training during the time of confinement so as to enable the person make one self viable to readjust back to society in the convenient fashion . In other cases they are provided with needed medical care or any other correctional remedy that might help them revert to normal life. The guidelines set forward by the SRA encompass that the punishment should be compatible with the seriousness of the crime, meaning that criteria for selecting a suitable punishment for the offender should be determined from the gravity of the crime and punishment must not be harsher than the crime committed, this is also accordance with the fundamental precepts of human rights. This way it is ensured that under no circumstances the dignity of human being is undermined or humbled. The way it is subtly handled in the SRA guidelines the society takes huge inspiration from it in preserving human dignity that is common to all mankind. The law aims at providing "certainty and fairness in meeting the purposes of sentencing" (Clark, 2004) Having come this far the SRA continued to reform sentencing practices and no doubt it has significant impact on criminal law and of sentencing policies but is that what it was only meant for or is there something more to it than just simple guideline, upon a closer and in depth analysis reveal that the ultimate objective and underlying principle of this is actually to control crime by a deterrent effect(USSC, 1991), in which a crime is condemned and the culprit is sentenced; who then serves as lesson for rest of the members of society that such action can yield into drastic consequences and every potential aspirant observe refrain from committing crime. The law was aptly interpreted by the Court as "striving for greater uniformity in federal sentencing by paying close attention to details of the crime and by sentencing offenders based on their real conduct." 1 At the correctional facilities when offenders are serving their terms the SRA makes sure that they are offered every help to get out of their past trauma of crime doing and help them as much possible to appreciate the normal lawful life. On the one hand where large number of people do avail the opportunity and come out of abysmal life of crime but there significant proportion of unfortunate people who fail to shun the crime and indulge into recidivism (USSC, 1991a) that is such people cannot improve their lives even after facing their punishment in full and psychologically are not able to liberate themselves out of the shackles of crime and find themselves helpless in overcoming urge to crime. Such people though for a time being agree to quit crime for good are never able to hold onto their words and fall prey to crime when opportunity is provided they have deep psychological needs that cannot be supplemented without the hundred percent commitment by the person in question. Thus it is bound upon law enforcing agencies to keep track of people after serving punishment in criminal cases so as to no to let any mishap being repeated at the hands of such convicts and though it is always not possible to keep them under constant scrutiny once they are free but it still helps in averting potential felonies often. The SRA was designed to help better the functioning of criminal justice system but it helped more in establishing social control and though one cannot claim that it completely removed and eradicated the crime from the society but it played a silent; significant and surgical role in tackling the issue of criminal justice and helped boost confidence in general public that despite of criminal minds lurking and prowling in society they are not enjoying impunity from the law and the SRA is there to safeguard their interests within their knowledge or otherwise. Reference: Howell, Robert (2004). Sentencing reform lessons: from the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 to the Feeney Amendment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Retrieved March 13, 2007 from http://goliath.ecnext.com/ Federal Sentencing Reform Act 1984 Retrieved March 13, 2007 from http://www.ussc.gov/15_year/chap1.pdf. William W. Wilkins Jr., Phyllis J. Newton and John R. Steer, The sentencing reform act of 1984: A bold approach to the unwarranted sentencing disparity problem Journal Criminal Law Forum. SpringerLink February 07, 2005: 355-380 Roger S. Clark, The United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Who is Watching the Makers of Grids Journal Criminal Law Forum. SpringerLink 2004 Cassidy, C. W. Federal Sentencing Guidelines-Guidelines Are Effectively Advisory, Not Mandatory; Appeals Should Follow the Standard of Unreasonableness J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 34:1:124-126 (2006) Rothman, 1983. Law Librarianship: A Handbook for the Electronic Age, ed. by Patrick E. Kehoe, Lovisa Lyman & Gary L. McCann Brooks, Sarah. 2002. "Social protection and economic integration: The politics of pension reform in an era of capital mobility," Comparative Political Studies, 35 no. 5: 491-523. Vito and H.E. Allen (1981). "Shock Probation in Ohio: A comparison of Outcomes." International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 25:70-76 Read More