Introduction
The punishment for embezzlement may vary greatly depending on several factors. These factors include the amount of money taken, the period under which it was taken, and the position of the defender when the money was taken. Hence, the penalty for embezzlement can range from no jail time and even the disposition that would allow a person charged with such a kind to avoid any conviction to prison time up to 10 years, depending on the person’s criminal history. The paper discusses the case of a 20-year-old, Stacey, convicted of embezzlement of $2000, and argues that a two-year probation sentence is just for this example.
The Goals of Corrections
The most crucial goal of corrections is to give a person an attempt to work for the good of society. An important goal is to deter the person from committing the wrongdoing again and demonstrate that the response to the crime will be immediate. It is a modern approach that rejects the concept of deterrence and retribution for the deeds of the criminal. In this case, such a goal is very appropriate since Stacey is still very young. Moreover, at the time of the process, she was pregnant.
A repeated conviction for theft (or any other type of crime, in general) under any circumstances complicates the case, even if during the serving of the sentence, the person showed complaisance and obedience. In the case of Stacey, multiple factors make her case complex. First of all, it is her criminal record and the fact that she has already completed one term of probation for theft as an adult. The fact that she managed to complete it acts as evidence of her obedience. However, the fact that Stacey engaged in a similar low-level crime in the position of trust questions the penalty measure taken for the embezzlement.
The Type of Sentences
There are two ways of approaching the embezzlement of $2000. In California state, embezzlement is defined by the Penal Code 503 PC. As Stacey is convicted of stealing the amount of money larger than $950, her case is considered grand theft. Hence, according to California state law, grand theft is treated as a wobbler, which is charged as a misdemeanor or felony. Stacey’s case is not much larger than $950; therefore, her case is considered a misdemeanor with a punishment of up to one year of imprisonment in the county jail.
Imprisonment of a pregnant woman may be a radical punishment, which may not bring any positive results in correcting the defender’s behavior. A judge can decide to impose probation if the offender does not guarantee a threat to society or incarceration does not seem an appropriate method of punishment. However, the probationer has to abide by some set rules for a specified time as decided by the court, and a probation officer should provide a regular report. Some of the requirements may include living in a directed location and place, submitting to alcohol and drug tests, and engaging in rehabilitation programs, among others. In cases where the probationer fails to comply with these rules, the judge can revoke the probation and demand the offender to serve in jail.
Probation for Stacey’s Needs
Probation secures criminals from incarceration and allows them to prove behavior improvement with time. The process aims to sanction lawbreakers by restricting and denying them freedom, protecting the general public, and responding to new offenses from these people to deter them from engaging in illegal activities. Authorities conduct the method through education, treatment, and other processes. Probation also considers the environmental factor by providing a crime-free place. When some amateur offenders use their time in jail, it reduces their chances of quick recovery, making them spend much of the government money with less favorable results. Unlike prisons that emphasize incapacitation, isolation, and punishment, probation focuses on rehabilitation, community involvement, and proportional response to crime. Depending on the severity of the crime, judges can support the process with programs and tools known as alternative incarceration.
The person convicted of embezzlement is entitled to an expungement in case of successful completion of probation. Because Stacey has completed her probation, she can receive expungement according to Penal Code 1203.4. The defendant’s pregnancy further supports the sentence of another probation for two years. The authority should acquire insight into why the offender chose the crime by will or other pressing factors. For instance, some minor offenses, including alcoholism and shoplifting, can happen for food, either the affected individual or their family. The solution to these challenges cannot come from the courts. This is the case for Stacey, as she is a school dropout with experience in a series of low-level jobs. Having probation for two years to correct lifestyle choices and receive education to increase the quality of life is crucial for a young mother. She should have the opportunity to provide for her own and her future child’s needs in fair and respectful ways.
Final Decision and Conclusion
Therefore, as a judge, I would ensure that the probation process is structured for offenders to attend counseling sessions as well as career guidance. The case would prevent Stacey from committing crimes again even when under no supervision because they shall have acquired a sense for life. According to research, those who have conducted serious crimes could have engaged in small adverse actions when young, but probation failed to provide appropriate support at that age (Clear et al., 2016), and this remains among the primary limitations of this process. Therefore, the case of Stacey is essential to emphasize the role of effective correction over punishment.
References
Clear, T. R., Reisig, M. D., Petrosino, C., & Cole, G. F. (2016). American Corrections in Brief (3rd ed.). Cengage Learning.
The Judgment, Cal. Penal Code § 1203.4 et seq. Web.
Embezzlement, Cal. Penal Code § 503 et seq. Web.