The two main strategies or rationales for sentencing are offender instrumental strategies and moral censure strategies. Offender instrumental strategies focus on the offender and the crime in question. This rational provides for punishment that is meant ensuring justice on the part of the criminal and the victims of the crime. The main theories for offender- instituted sentencing include retributive theory, deterrence theory, and incapacitation theory (Davies, Croall, & Tyrer, 2005, pp. 31). Moral censure strategies for sentencing look at the moral aspect of a crime and aim at enforcing morality in the society. Morality Censure strategies include rehabilitation, reparation, and denunciation.
As a judge, I would give priority to offender-driven sentences at the expense of morality censure strategies for sentencing. This is because legal structures such as the judicial system are established on the basis of law and all their processes must be in accordance with the legal framework in place. The question or morality lies without the confines of the law, and in as much as morality helps to prevent crimes; it is not the role of the judiciary to enforce morality. The primary objective of courts is to enforce the law. Punishment is a concept of justice that ensures criminals get what they deserve from their criminal acts. Punishments are provided for in law and there are many different punishment oriented strategies that have been effective over the years and still continue to play a major role in cubing crime.
There are different theories that explain the offender- instrumental strategies for sentencing. These theories include retributive theory, deterrence theory, and incapacitation theory. Despite addressing the same issue of crime through punishment, these theories use different approaches to arrive at the same objective. The retributive theory, for instance, advocates for punishment as the best