Sentencing for those found guilty of crimes presents a difficult challenge because justice must be seen to be done for both victims and perpetrators. Mandatory sentencing ensures that the same sentence is handed out for the same crime; however, judges lose the ability to adjust sentences and cannot take into account factors such as age and the possibility of rehabilitation.
In this essay, the consequences of mandatory sentencing will be discussed. Mandatory sentencing has the advantage that everyone is aware of exactly the sentence they can expect if found guilty of a particular crime. Nonetheless, since people who commit crimes are often poorly educated and may not consider the consequences of their actions when they commit a legal misconduct, this approach may offer little benefit. Removing the ability of judges to adjust sentences on the basis of the circumstances of a crime may also lead to injustice as it assumes that any two people who commit the same violation have the same level of moral culpability. For example, someone who murders in order to prevent suffering is morally different to someone who murders a stranger at random. Applying the same sentences in such disparate cases clearly would not serve the interests of either justice or the wider community.
In addition, it may be appropriate to give a young person who has committed a wrongdoing a lighter sentence in order to give them the opportunity to change their behaviour and become a productive and law-abiding citizen. In contrast, a person who is older and has committed many crimes should receive a heavier penalty as they are more likely to offend again in the future and heavier sentences are needed to protect the community.
In summary, mandatory sentencing may lead to injustice because the same misconduct may be committed for very different reasons. In addition, a person’s history and the opportunity for rehabilitation should also be taken into consideration when deciding sentences for those convicted of committing crimes.
Sentencing
for those found guilty of
crimes
presents a difficult challenge
because
justice
must
be
seen
to
be done
for both victims and perpetrators.
Mandatory
sentencing
ensures that the same
sentence
is handed
out for the same
crime
;
however
, judges lose the ability to adjust
sentences
and cannot take into account factors such as age and the possibility of rehabilitation.
In this essay, the consequences of
mandatory
sentencing
will
be discussed
.
Mandatory
sentencing
has the advantage that everyone is aware of exactly the
sentence
they can
expect
if found guilty of a particular
crime
. Nonetheless, since
people
who
commit
crimes
are
often
poorly
educated and may not consider the consequences of their actions when they commit a legal misconduct, this approach may offer
little
benefit. Removing the ability of judges to adjust
sentences
on the basis of the circumstances of a
crime
may
also
lead to injustice as it assumes that any two
people
who
commit the same violation have the same level of moral culpability.
For example
, someone
who
murders in order to
prevent
suffering is
morally
different
to someone
who
murders a stranger at random. Applying the same
sentences
in such disparate cases
clearly
would not serve the interests of either justice or the wider community.
In addition
, it may be appropriate to give a young person
who
has committed a wrongdoing a lighter
sentence
in order to give them the opportunity to
change
their
behaviour
and become a productive and law-abiding citizen.
In contrast
, a person
who
is older and has committed
many
crimes
should receive a heavier penalty as they are more likely to offend again in the future and heavier
sentences
are needed
to protect the community.
In
summary,
mandatory
sentencing
may lead to injustice
because
the same misconduct may
be committed
for
very
different
reasons.
In
addition, a person’s history and the opportunity for rehabilitation should
also
be taken
into consideration when deciding
sentences
for those convicted of committing
crimes
.