Many alternative and innovative sentencing options are implied in the current criminal justice system because of the system’s need to adapt. Various circumstances may lead to the implication of those options instead of traditional ones. For instance, a recent study reports that the criminal justice system of England and Wales is currently focused on alternative sanctions since prisons in those countries have almost reached their capacity, and the coronavirus pandemic has increased the imprisonment risks (as cited in Hamilton, 2021, p. 6). Since the pandemic is a worldwide issue, there is a high chance that many other countries are experiencing the same problems. The criminal justice systems of those countries have to adjust because the availability of imprisonment sentencing is significantly limited. Although imprisonment may prevent various events of criminal nature, it can also “create criminogenic effects in facilitating criminal behavior” (Hamilton, 2021, p. 7). Thereby, the implication of alternative and innovative sentencing options is needed not only due to external factors. It can also positively impact the criminal justice system and directly decrease crime rates.
Nonetheless, it is essential to discuss the initial role of sentencing in the criminal justice system to address the implication of its options adequately. As Hamilton (2021) states, the primary purpose of sentencing is “to prevent further offending through the imposition of sanctions which deter, incapacitate, or rehabilitate offenders” (p. 4). Moreover, sentencing is also critical on a societal level as it is highly demonstrative and may make other people think of committing a crime reconsider.
Still, the primary goal of any criminal justice system is to protect innocents and punish those who are guilty. As Fischer (2020) claims, the Biblical view of justice “involves protecting the weak from the rich and powerful” (p. 6). Therefore, any non-traditional sentencing option should ensure the offender cannot or is not motivated to re-offend. A crime victim wants to see their offender sentenced just as the criminal justice system does. The Christian worldview suggests that people should be able to perform a non-violent intervention if laws become unjust (Fischer, 2020). For example, if an offender physically assaulted a victim, left them with bad injuries, and got mandatory community service as a sentence, the victim might not accept it as they do not want to see their offender walk free and be able to do any harm again. Such a conflict arises a philosophical dilemma that the Bible cannot solve as it states that man is sinful and God is the only source of truth (Fischer, 2020). Christianity offers a morally acceptable worldview that can be implied for significant juridical decisions, including those that involve criminal justice.
Therefore, it is left to man to develop the criminal justice system and adjust it to achieve its goals. That is why alternative and innovative sentencing options are implied in the first place. The primary purposes of criminal justice are to punish past crimes and prevent future ones (Hamilton, 2021). As the world is evolving and rapidly changing, so are the crime and the criminal justice system, which is why there is no other way than to introduce new sentencing options. It is viable from the Christian overview as long as those options do not conflict with the Biblical idea of justice, which involves protecting the weak and not going against the word of God.
References
Fischer, K. J. (2020). Biblical principles of government and criminal justice. Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy, 1(1), 1-13.
Hamilton, M. (2021). The effectiveness of sentencing options. Sentencing Academy.