Written Assignment 2.docx - Running head EXPLORATION OF CORRECTIONS Written Assignment 2 Exploration of Corrections Shanna A Williams Regent University

Written Assignment 2.docx - Running head EXPLORATION OF...

This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 8 pages.

Running head: EXPLORATION OF CORRECTIONS Written Assignment 2: Exploration of Corrections Shanna A. Williams Regent University CRJU 330 1
Image of page 1
Running head: EXPLORATION OF CORRECTIONS Current Approach to Sentencing According to Latessa, Allen & Ponder (2016) is “either pled guilty to or be found guilty of a crime by either a jury or a bench trial” (p.72). Deciding the sentencing involves several factors. We are reminded by Latessa, Allen & Ponder (2016) that these factors included by or not limited to “alternative dispositions allowed by statute, the criminal intent of the offender, the amount of harm or loss to the victim, the remorse expressed by the offender, and other mitigating or aggravating factors” (p. 72). Currently, the predominant approach to sentencing and corrections is based on indeterminate sentencing. In earlier studies on the correction system, we learned that indeterminate sentence is a sentence imposed for a crime that isn’t given a definite duration. After years of different sentencing approaches the reform movement was developed and implemented and are currently being carried out in our sentencing approach. In Criminal Law, Latessa, Allen & Ponder (2016) stated the result options included the following: Abolishing plea bargaining, establishing plea-bargaining rules and guidelines, setting mandatory minimum sentences, establishing statutory determinate sentencing, setting voluntary or descriptive sentencing guidelines or presumptive or prescriptive sentencing guidelines, creating sentencing councils, requiring judges to provide reasons for their sentences, setting parole guidelines to limit parole board discretion, abolishing parole, adopting or modifying good-time procedures and routinizing appellate review of sentence. (p. 73) These reform sentencing options were created for many reasons but overall it was created for justice and fairness in today’s sentencing approach. 2
Image of page 2
Running head: EXPLORATION OF CORRECTIONS Though Latessa, Allen & Ponder suggested that the reform movement of sentencing has its general approach, Mackenzie (2001) stated in sentencing and corrections; “In contrast with the widespread use of the indeterminate sentencing model of 30 years ago, there is no standard approach to sentencing and corrections today” (p. 17). Latessa, Allen & Ponder (2016) stated the reform “steps designed to limit unbridled discretion, reduce discrimination, make sentencing fairer, and enhance justice” (p. 73) and Mackenzie (2001) agreed by stating “early attempts to enact structured sentencing were designed to reduce sentencing disparities, to limit the possibility of gender or racial bias, and to achieve a form of “truth in policymaking” by linking sentencing policies to corrections spending policies” (p. 17).
Image of page 3
Image of page 4

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 8 pages?

  • Spring '14
  • StephenC.Raptis
  • criminal law, Latessa

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes