Examine the fundamental manner in which proportionality and truth in sentencing impacts fair sentencing. Suggest two (2) actions that Congress could take in order to restructure sentencing to ensure fairness to both the victim and offender. Provide a rationale for your response.
Analyze two (2) of the goals of substantive criminal law and determine their importance to the correctional system. Predict the major outcomes if the correctional system does not meet these goals. Justify your response.
RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT
Proportionality is a sentence that matches both the crime and justice for the victims. In the US we don’t give probation for a murder case, as stated in the textbook. In order for Congress to restructure the process it would need to take budget into consideration, as well as the actual crime itself. A larceny charge, if it were to be treated as a murder charge, would take a long trial costs and isn’t reasonable for a lesser person crime. With the truth in sentencing it’s the same in that with good behavior offenders are released after serving 85% of their sentence. As a victim this doesn’t feel right, and as the state, the budget needs that break. So for Congress, there needs keep the offenders in even if they have good time because when it comes to fairness between the victim or the offender, it should be the victim who comes first. Then take the budget into consideration, that comes down to pay loss for the corrections personnel, or tax payers. So with all that being said, it’s a difficult situation. However, maybe extending the good behavior time to 95% and see the difference in budget cost.
Two goals for substantive criminal law is distribute retribution, and deter criminal behavior. Both are extremely important for the correctional system because with the pay back of fines and fees that helps the budget crisis, and when it’s retribution to the victim that helps with the costs that has came to them by the offender.
