The topic selected is “impact of sentencing guidelines on the criminal justice system”. Several reforms have been introduced into the criminal justice system to make it better. It is always essential to analyze them so as determine whether they have been effective in reducing crime or in handling any of the other functions of the criminal justice system.
Sentencing guidelines have been introduced in various federal states for several reasons. Some stem from growing concerns by the public that crime is getting out of control. Legislators, therefore, impose mandatory sentencing in the hope of reducing these tendencies. On the other hand, criminal courts have been criticized for differential sentencing so policymakers have responded to these complaints by passing sentencing guidelines to curb those disparities (Candace, 2010). It is also possible that any sentencing guideline may create both foreseen and unforeseen effects. For example, some may lead to more effective policing, less disparate sentences, and more effective correctional functions. These guidelines may also have indirect effects such as a declining or increasing prison population, fewer racial biases, and the like. Researches need to look at these effects to place the matter in context. It should be noted that sentencing guidelines can either be implemented through a sentencing commission (which gives highly prescriptive guides) or through judges who give the presumptive and highly descriptive guidelines. However, these latter guidelines are rarely implemented as they are only voluntary. Most guidelines are also affected by the laws in operation within a certain federal state. About this topic, it may become necessary to think about the prison facilities and their capacity too.
This topic is particularly relevant to the criminal justice system because not only does it determine whether a certain policy is effective in achieving deterrence, it also looks at its effect on several arms of the criminal justice system. Deterrence has always been a major aim of the system. Sentencing is directly related to deterrence because if a sentence incarcerates an individual effectively then that person may be persuaded to keep away from crime. However, if the sentence is too lenient or is given wrongfully, then offenders are likely to go back to criminal activities. The effectiveness of sentencing guidelines should therefore be studied to improve the criminal justice system. This topic can also provide a lens against which to judge how policies in criminal justice are translated.
The police as part of the criminal justice system’s core competencies are affected adversely by sentencing guidelines because they are the ones who capture and charge criminals. They have the prerogative of determining the seriousness of crimes and their relation to sentencing outcomes. Since the arrested criminals will be charged in a court that utilizes sentencing guidelines then the police have had to be neutral in their arrests. Cases of racism have declined in states that have implemented these minimum sentences among the police (Travis, 1996). Police arrests have also become more uniform. One of the most heavily affected institutions is the court system. Judges usually have a range of alternatives to choose from when deciding how to punish criminals and this leads to a lack of uniformity in sentencing decisions with some of them being more lenient than others. Sentencing guidelines, therefore, tend to curb these discrepancies and eventually lead to predictable decision-making in the courts. Also, appellate cases have increased as criminals decide to use plea bargaining. In terms of the correctional agencies, sentencing guidelines have affected prison populations because most of them are passed to limit prison populations (Marvell, 1995). Prison capacities are often considered before the passage of sentencing guidelines in a federal state.
References
Marvell, T. (1995). Sentencing guidelines and prison population growth. Criminal law and criminology journal, 85(3), 25.
Candace, M. (2010). Sentencing: mandatory and mandatory minimum sentences. Web.
Travis, J. (1996). Impact of sentencing guidelines. Washington DC: NIJ report, NCJ 161840.