variables considered before sentencing an offender

Variables Considered before Sentencing an Offender

Student’s Name

Institution

Variables Considered before Sentencing an Offender

The judiciary is a branch of the government mandated with the responsibility of ensuring that all citizens or non-citizens within the state’s boundary who break the law are brought to book. The laws are written in a constitution and it is this book that helps bring peace, order and tranquility to the land. The judiciary ensures that justice is served no matter the social class of those who engage in illegal activities. There are various variables that help guide the judiciary so that it imposes an appropriate punishment or treatment on offenders. Some of these vital variables are as explained below.

To begin with, the judicial authorities must always consider the seriousness of the offence committed by the offender. It would make no sense if a citizen who trespasses into another citizen’s property and steals food is accorded the same treatment as someone who robs a bank and murders some of the individuals he took hostage. Basically there are three types of crimes namely felonies, misdemeanors and infractions. The crimes are classified according to the seriousness of the offence the most serious offence being felonies. Those who commit felonies face the risk of being sentenced to serve at least a year in jail and in extreme cases might face execution. Misdemeanors are those crimes whose seriousness is slightly below that of felonies. Infractions are considered to be petty crimes and don’t deserve jail terms most of them being local laws.

Secondly, the judicial authorities must always consider the prior records of the offender while sentencing. By considering the prior records of the offender the court would formulate facts such as that the offender is not rehabilitated or has not learnt from past mistakes or if he is a first time offender it might be concluded that it is an isolated case and thus the offender entitled to lenient charges. In case the offender has prior records of which he was not sentenced due to various reasons, the punishment issued by the judge should include punishment against such offences. The offender should however agree to have committed such crimes lest the Attorney General’s be summoned to investigate and confirm that the offender did commit the crimes.

In addition, the judicial authorities must consider the state of mind of the offender being sentenced. Competency to stand a trial is usually a question of the offender’s current state of mind. The mental state of mind of the offender at the time the actual crime was committed should also be considered. The court should consider whether at the moment of occurrence of crime the offender was able to recognize the danger or alternatively ought to have recognized the risk. If a report from a medical practitioner states that the offender’s state of mind is not sane, then the right course of action would be to ensure that the offender doesn’t mingle with the public till the mental state is restored back to normal. Otherwise it would be unjust to sentence an insane person as he or she is not cognitive.

The public opinion is another factor that needs to be considered by the judicial authorities when imposing an appropriate course of action. The court should ensure that as it passes judgment on the offenders, public confidence in the administration of justice is upheld. The last thing the state needs is the citizens resolving to other means of offering ‘justice’ because they don’t believe in the effectiveness of the system. These means include mob justice. In mob justice, not all parties are given adequate time to argue out their cases hence innocent civilians may be wrongly punished. In most cases punishment is offered through beatings and this goes against the traditions of human rights.

Last but most, the judicial authorities should offer fair judgment on cases of multiple offences. The aggregate or overall sentence should at all times be just and appropriate to the totality of the offending behavior. This is referred to as the totality principle. The court should consider the outcome of all offences committed by the offender so as to ensure that the punishment is neither too harsh nor too lenient. It should not seem like what the court is offering the offender is indeed some kind of discount for multiple actions.

In my opinion, the most important variable to be considered by the court is the seriousness of the offense. Felonies should attract more severe punishments whereas infractions should attract less severe punishments since sentencing someone to life imprisonment would for walking around naked would be unjust while severely sentencing a serial killer would discourage the acts of murder. On the other hand, the least important variable would be public opinion. This is because the public is not always right thus what they think does not always matter. The field of law should be left to the legal practitioners and a peasant farmer from a remote village in an unnamed island should not affect the operations of the court.

When issuing fines, the court should not consider the income of the offender. This is a variable that should not be used. That an offender has a high income does not warrant the court to issue a higher fine for an offence which an offender having a relatively lower income would have been fined less. Someone should not be offered treatment based on their social class but rather treatment should be offered based on equality and fairness. Suffering more financial loss should not be entertained at all costs.

References

Nowacki, J. S. (2013). Race, Ethnicity, and Judicial Discretion: The Influence of the United States v. Booker Decision. Crime & Delinquency, 0011128712470990.Hyatt, J., Chanenson, S. L., & Bergstrom, M. H. (2011). Reform in Motion: The Promise and Perils of Incorporating Risk Assessments and Cost-Benefit Analysis into Pennsylvania Sentencing.