The primary goal of this paper is to discover the substantial principles of the Senate Bill 42 in the context of parole and sentencing, as it is one of the important documents in the history of the criminal law. Another goal is to discover its effects on the sentencing principles and law principles. Furthermore, describing my opinion will help deliver the understanding of my perception in the context of the application of the parole and sentencing principles and determine my perception of the necessity of modification in future. In the end, the conclusions are drawn. The Senate Bill 42 is strongly connected to the parole and sentencing principles and the application of the criminal law in practice in the United States of America.
In this instance, the Senate Bill 42 specified different levels of terms such as lower, middle, and upper for each felony (Griset 55). According to Siegel and Bartollas, this document determined that the judges were obliged to find the solutions to sentences “at the time of the offender’s conviction” (41). In this instance, the convicted person is not able to know the final penalty until the final sentence is imposed. Furthermore, the length of the imprisonment can be corrected by several months after the application of the penalty. Lastly, it remained evident that the period of incarceration could have been extended or reduced based on the actions of the inmates.
As for the historical events, the Senate Bill 42 experienced some modifications over a period of time. In this case, some of the sentences had to go under the modification due to the introduction of restriction and alterations while applying different crime terms (Griset 56). It remains evident that the establishment of this approach had positive intentions, as it emphasized the principles of freedom and democracy in the American society. Nonetheless, the complications, which were related to the establishment of the different rules and regulations in other spheres, contributed to the inability to determine the coherent sentences and maintain the incarceration process in order. In this case, the complication and misunderstandings will continue to exist due to the lack of the well-organized structure and restrictions of the sentencing principles.
In my personal opinion, the establishment of the Senate Bill 42 is rather controversial, as, on one hand, it is beneficial for the establishment of the principles of freedom and modifications of sentences due to the individual behavior of the inmates. Nonetheless, the implementation of the Senate Bill 42’s fundamental principles creates confusion while determining the sentences, as they can be constantly modified. In this instance, one of the solutions to this issue is the introduction of the particular restrictions regarding this matter, as it will help avoid the adverse consequences related to the sentencing in future and contribute to the establishment of criminal law system.
In conclusion, it could be said that SB 42 plays an important role in the area of parole and sentencing, as it determines the flow of events in the context of the criminal law. In the end, it remains evident that despite having positive intentions, the introduction of the Senate Bill 42 created complication while applying the sentencing principles. In this instance, some alterations have to be introduced to determine the particular order in the establishment of the sufficient and relevant sentences.
Works Cited
Griset, Pamala. Determinate Sentencing: The Promise and the Reality of Retributive Justice. New York: State University of New York Press, 2001. Print.
Siegel, Larry and Clemens Bartollas. Corrections Today. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.