This document discusses sentencing philosophies and goals, including punishment, rehabilitation, deterrence, and restitution. It outlines different sentencing models such as determinate, indeterminate, and guideline sentencing. It also covers sentencing options, enhancements, and broader issues around proportionality, equity, and racial disparities in legislation and sentencing.

1. Chapter 3
Sentencing:
To Punish or to Reform?
McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2013 McGraw-Hill Companies. All Rights Reserved.

2. Key Terms
 Sentencing: Imposition of a criminal
sanction by a sentencing authority,
such as a judge
 Sentence: The penalty a court
imposes on a person convicted of a
crime
3-2

3. Philosophy of Criminal Sentencing
 John Conrad: “The punishment of the criminal is
the collective reaction of the community to the
wrong that has been done. It is the offender’s lot
to be punished.”
 Social Order: The smooth functioning of social
institutions, the existence of positive and
productive relations among individual members
of society, and the orderly functioning of society
as a whole.
3-3

4. Sentencing Goals
 Revenge: Punishment is equated with
vengeance.
 Retribution: Paying back the victim for
what the offender has done.
 Associated with “an eye for an eye”
 Just Desert: Punishment deserved.
 Criminal offenders are morally blameworthy
and are therefore deserving of punishment.
3-4

5. Sentencing Goals - Continued
 Deterrence: The discouragement or prevention
of crimes through the fear of punishment.
 Specific deterrence: the deterrence of the
individual being punished from committing
additional crimes.
 General deterrence: the use of the example of
individual punishment to dissuade others from
committing crimes.
3-5

6. Sentencing Goals - Continued
 Incapacitation: The use of imprisonment or
other means to reduce an offender’s
capability to commit future offenses.
3-6

7. Sentencing Goals - Continued
 Rehabilitation or reformation: the
changing of criminal lifestyles into law-
abiding ones by “correcting” the behavior
of offenders through treatment,
education, and training.
 Reintegration: the process of making
the offender a productive member of
the community.
3-7

8. Sentencing Goals - Continued
 Restoration: the process of returning to
their previous condition all those involved
in or affected by crime.
 Includes victims, offenders, and society.
 Restorative justice: A systematic
response to wrongdoing that
emphasizes healing the wounds of
victims, offenders, and communities
caused or revealed by crime.
3-8

9. Sentencing Goals - Continued
 Victim Impact Statement: A description of the
harm and suffering that a crime has caused
victims and survivors.
 Advocates of restorative justice believe not only
that the victim should be restored by the justice
process but also that the offender and society
should participate in the restoration process.
3-9

10. Sentencing Options
 Fines or other monetary sanctions
 Probation
 Alternative or intermediate sanctions
 Incarceration
 Death Penalty
3-10

11. Restitution
 Payments made by a criminal offender
to his or her victim (or the court which
then turns them over to the victim) as
compensation for the harm caused by
the offense.
3-11

12. Types of Sentences
 Mandatory Sentence: sentences required
by law under certain circumstances.
 Consecutive Sentences: sentences
served one after the other.
 Concurrent Sentences: sentences served
simultaneously.
3-12

13. Sentencing Models
 Flat Sentences: specify a given amount of time
to be served in custody.
 Allows little or no variation from the time specified
 Common in the 19th Century
 Indeterminate Sentence: specifies a fixed
minimum and a maximum length. (e.g. 5 to 15)
 The parole board determines the actual time of release.
 Good time: the amount of time prison authorities deduct
from a sentence for good behavior or other reasons.
 Determinate Sentence: specifies a fixed term of
incarceration.
 Can be reduced by good time
3-13

14. Sentencing Models – Continued
 Guideline Sentencing
 Voluntary/Advisory Sentencing
Guidelines: recommended sentencing
policies that are not required by law
 Presumptive Sentencing Guidelines
 Federal Sentencing Guidelines
 The legal environment and sentencing
guidelines (next slide)
3-14

15. The Legal Environment and
Sentencing Guidelines
 Nichols v. U.S.
 United States v. Watts
 Edwards v. U.S.
 U.S. v. Cotton
 Apprendi v. New Jersey
 Blakely v. Washington
 U.S. v. Booker and U.S. v. Fanfan
3-15

16. Sentencing Models – Continued
 Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: The
imposition of sentences required by statute
for those convicted of a particular crime or
a particular crime under special
circumstances (e.g., robbery with a firearm
or selling drugs to a minor within 1,000
feet of a school), or for those with a
particular type of criminal history.
3-16

17. Sentencing Enhancement
 Habitual Offender Statute
 A law that (1) allows a person’s criminal
history to be considered at sentencing or
(2) makes it possible for a person
convicted of a given offense and
previously convicted of another specified
offense to receive a more severe penalty
than that for the current offense alone.
 Three-Strikes Laws
 Ewing v. California
3-17

18. Three Strike Laws
 During the 1990s, 26 states and the
federal government enacted new habitual
offenders’ laws that fell into the three-
strike category.
 Rationale behind the laws were mandatory
sentences have two goals – deterrence
and incapacitation.
3-18

19. Issues in Sentencing
 Proportionality: the severity of punishment should
match the seriousness of the crime.
 Equity: similar crimes and similar offenders should
be treated alike.
 Social Debt: the severity of punishment should take
into account the offender’s prior criminal behavior.
 Racial and Ethnic Disparities: Legislation and
Sentencing
 Truth in Sentencing: Requires offenders to serve a
substantial portion of their sentence.
3-19

20. Broader Issues
 Guideline-based determinate sentencing
and restorative justice appear to be
inherently at odds with each other.
 A hybrid system of “restorative sentencing
guidelines” has been suggested to resolve
the problem.
 Under the hybrid system the guidelines
would not apply to lower severity offenders.
3-20