The criminal justice system plays a significant role in ensuring that offenders receive commensurate punishments that match their offences. Criminal justice players, including law enforcement officers, courts, and correctional facilities, work together to devise and implement policies to guide their decisions. At the heart of the criminal justice system are the correctional facilities who hold offenders and keep them away from mainstream society until they are deemed fully rehabilitated. At times, offenders who have engaged in capital offenses such as first-degree murder, espionage, mass drug-trafficking, and treason are given more severe punishment most notably life imprison. The criminal justice system can decide that life imprisonment is not punitive enough and sentence these offenders to the death penalty. While the death penalty seems like the most viable option, there are raging debates regarding its effectiveness as a strategy for punishing or combating future offenses. It is essential to incorporate Christian worldview perspectives to the issue of corrections to get deeper insights and forge new approaches.
Sentencing
Sentencing is a significant function of the criminal justice system that concerns itself with determining the kind of punishment and its duration for the crimes committed. The courts assess evidence from both the offenders and the complainants and from here arrive at a fair conclusion. In handling this responsibility, the courts are guided by sentencing policies that govern the issuance of legal sanctions for those who are of criminal offenses. Demleitner (2018) establishes sentencing policies shape a wide array of institutional processes such as the nature and duration of the imprisonment. More so, these policies are used in determining release decisions as well as conditions revolving around post-incarceration supervision. The U.S. has decentralized sentencing policies to allow each of its states to decide on its own policy goals, which are now more of retributive as opposed to rehabilitative. Sentencing policies revolve around mandatory minimums, repeat-offenders statuses, drug laws, sentencing enhancements, and truth-in-sentencing statuses. Most of the state and federal sentencing policies are implemented through legislative actions, although other entities such as the sentencing commission have a stake in formulating and implementing these policies.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The criminal justice use sentencing policies as a tool for selecting the individuals who will be subjected to punitive measures such as incarceration or the death penalty. While these policies inform these decisions, these policies may be flawed owing to being inclined to conservative political ideologies. Additionally, these policies are prone to intense partisan politics and increase in criminal justice resources more which in turn contribute to more punitive Sentencing policies have contributed to an increase in the number of incarcerated individuals from 110 per 100,000 persons in 1970 to 670 per 100,000 in 2016 (Weidner & Schultz, 2019). Such increases place the U.S. as the leading nation with the highest penal population that stands at more than 2-2 million with the probability of growing eve higher. Of importance, here is the need to understand that most of the sentencing policies are racially and gender-biased, placing minority males at a higher likelihood for punitive actions. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (2020), as of 2020, 58.6% of all inmates are Whites, 37.5% African Americans, 2.3% Native Americans and 1.5%. Looking at the statistics, one can conclude that the policies are fair, but one should consider each of the race's population against the majority of whites. For instance, according to the United States Census Bureau (2019) estimated that African Americans comprised 13.4%, Native Americans 2% and Asians. In this case, then it means that incarceration rates for minority races, most especially Africans Americans are higher as compared to those of whites. These statistics indicate that sentencing policies have impacted not only on the criminal justice system but also to the offenders.
Imprisonment
Convicted offenders end up in correctional facilities, which have a great responsibility of helping these people to become a better version of them in readiness for reintegration to the mainstream society. Imprisonment allows individuals to rethink about their criminal task as the facilities limit their freedoms, which allowed them to commit the crime in the first place. At this point, it is essential to note that imprisonment serves four purposes, which are retribution, deterrence incapacitation, and rehabilitation depending on the crime. As a retributive tool, imprisonment paves the way for individuals to receive punishments for their cries by depriving them of the freedoms. Incapacitation, as a goal in prison, is about permanently removing individuals from society to ensure that they can no longer hurt innocent people (Enns, 2016). On the other hand, imprisonment as a deterrence room hopes that individuals will not go back to crime after serving their terms. In the same breath, individuals who are yet to be convicted or engage in crime get a chance to rethink about engaging in crime. Finally, imprisonment is a tool that is used to modify offenders' behaviors so that they can become law-abiding citizens for reintegration purposes.
While imprisonment is directed at behavior modification, it is not automatic that offenders will become better individuals. Individuals who complete their prison terms or are granted parole may become repeat offenders and end up in prisons. According to Alper et al. (2018), a 9-year study on recidivism rate in the U.S. indicated that 83 per cent of all state prisoners who were released in 2005 across 30 states were rearrested at least once. In the fits year alone, 4 out of 9 prisoners were arrested something that forces one to rethink about the U.S. imprisonments policies. Imprisonment policies are concerned with ensuring that criminals are likely to engage in crime once they are released. In achieving this aim, the courts usually rely on offenders' past history to understand their crime patterns and from here craft commensurate prison terms. Individuals with a long past criminal record are likely to get longer prison terms during each sentencing with the hope that they are deterred from engaging in criminal activities. At this point, one cannot help but wonder if handing repeat offenders longer consecutive prison terms indeed reduces recidivism rates. In line with longer prison terms, parole supervision, conditions, which is a correctional policy, is responsible for recidivism. Rhodes et al. (2017) establish that the parole effect, which revolves around the duration prisoners serve their terms outside of prison, is related to high recidivism rates. Offenders who spend a more substantial part of their prison term in community supervisor are more likely to reoffend, as the opportunities are readily available. The opposite is exact as those that serve a significant part of their terms in prisons and complete them under community supervision are less likely to reoffend. The reason for this outcome is the fact that the prison has little or no chances to engage in criminal activities, thus helping offenders to be rehabilitated fully.
Alternatives to Imprisonment
The court system uses its discretion to determine which of the convicted offenders will serve prison terms and who will be punished using other options. The decision to provide alternative forms of punishment is advised by the fact that imprisonment does not always guarantee a change of behavior for minor offenders and vulnerable populations. Moreover, alternatives are viable ways of saving on taxpayers' money, considering that housing and catering for the needs of a rising number of inmates are overwhelming. Alternatives to punishments allow offences to rethink about crime while getting social support and advice from families, judicial officers and the community. The decision to give options is based on various considerations, which include one's age, the nature of the crime as well as the offenders' mental health status. In line with this provision, children, women, the mentally ill and drug users are candidates for alternative punitive and rehabilitative options.
The court has various alternatives to imprisonment, which include verbal sanctions, status penalties, conditional discharges, economic penalties, house arrest, suspended sentences, judicial supervision or probation, community service or attendance centers. Verbal sanctions, including warnings and reprimands, are mild alternatives to imprisonment where offenders are warned against reoffending without being required to fulfill further conditions. Status penalties punish offenders by limiting them from holding positions of power in society has committed financial fraud or involved in professional malpractice (Abramavoite, 2019). For instance, the court may revoke medical professionals' licenses or to ensure that they suffer from their actions, having reduced their earning power. Conditional discharges as an alternative form of punishment establish the conditions that the offender should fulfill if he or she does not want to end up in prions. Economic penalties require offenders to pay fines that, match their offenses. At times, the court may decide to place offenders under supervised house arrest to limit their movement and in turn, chances for committing crimes (Abramovaite, 2019). Suspended sentences work by delaying the implementation of the sentence to allow the offender to meet the courts' condition (s).
On the other hand, judicial supervision or probation focuses on following up on the offender to ensure that he or she adheres to the courts' term of release. The court can decide that instead of imprisonment, some offenders could engage in unpaid and supervised community service for a specified period until he or she pays for the offense. In some other cases, offenders are referred to attendance centers where they spend their days getting therapeutic interventions for improved outcomes.
Death Penalty
Death penalty as a form of punishing capital offenders fuels numerous debates regarding its morality, practicability, and effectiveness in curbing or punishing crime. Despite these debates, capital punishments are considered one of the most effective forms of punishment owing to its ability to disable offenders. According to Lantin (2017), the surest way of removing criminal offenders in societies and ensures that victims achieve justice, knowing that the offenders will not threaten them. The death penalty could be viewed as serving a utilitarian purpose in deterring would-be criminals as the consequences outweigh the benefits. When an individual is executed for committing capital offenses other society members are more likely to avoid crime for fear of being subjected to such punishments (Johnson, 2019). While the death penalty seems like the most viable option for punishing capital offenders, it raises ethical questions regarding respect to human rights. Opponents for the death penalty feel that it reduces human dignity as individuals are subjected to untold suffering through cruel execution methods. This treatment reduces the offenders to the level of animals who have no say regarding their fate at the hands of humans. In line with this view, the death penalty does not allow individuals to pay for their crimes, considering that the dead can longer experience pain. The situation is worse for relatives who have to lose their loved ones at the hands of the same government that purports to preserve human rights and dignity.
Christian Worldview on Sentencing, Imprisonment, Alternative to Imprisonment and Death Penalty
Corrections aspects such as sentencing, imprisonment, alternatives to punishment and death could be analyzed and interpreted through a Christian worldview. Christianity is more of a peaceful as opposed to a violent religion, which calls upon individuals to exercise caution when dealing with others. Jesus in Mathew 22: 39b admonished Christians to love their neighbors as they love themselves. In the same breath, Jesus in Luke 6:31 advised His followers to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". The verse that has come to be known as the Golden Rule' applies to the whole issue of corrections. Resner & Statler (2017), establishes that it is not advisable to subject others to cruel measures for their actions if the same cruelty would hurt the persons meting these punishments. Christianity is all about forgiving others just as God forgives individuals when they seek forgiveness. In such a case, if criminals feel that their actions contravene the social rules and seek forgiveness there is no reason why they should not be forgiven and allowed to start over. Forgiveness is a central these aim Christianity and the reason it is so is the fact that everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). This verse is indicative of the fact that there is no one not even the judges are supposed to condemn others because they too have their own shortcomings. In line with this, Christianity advises against retribution but instead asks Christians to give the other cheek
While Christian worldview seems to be concerned with forgiveness and meekness ion the face of crime, the Old Testament seems to adopt different approach. This testament does not to relate crime and is ridden with numerous laws that purport to govern the conduct of people. Each of the law is linked with punitive measures, which include death, isolation, exile, or other sanctions that are associated with modern criminal justice system. Exodus 21:6 establishes that "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:12 Perhaps the most relevant verse concerning the death penalty is Exodus 21: 2 which asserts that" He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. Looking at these two scriptures it is evident that death penalty was an option for sentencing and punishing criminals. Throughout the Old Testament, kings killed their enemies in their hundreds of thousands and their actions did not displease God. King David who is considered as a man after Gods own heart is credited as a great man of war who conquered nations and brought them under his control. The only time that David erred is the time he lay with Uriah's wife and ordered his murder to hide the truth. Throughout this testament, God killed people who went against his commandments either through fire, flood or even the ground swallowing them alive. Old testament rides on retribution that is 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', a concept behind the death penalty.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The criminal justice system plays a crucial role in ensuring that criminal offenders receive commensurate punishment for their crimes. The courts have the discretion to determine whether they will imprison, execute, or administer alternative forms of punishment depending on the nature of crime and offenders. In doing this, the courts rely on corrections policies and guidelines which outline punitive, rehabilitative and deterrence measures. These policies are not as effective as they lead to increased and biased incarceration that target minority ethnicities. In this case, there is a need for reviewing policies that ensure fairness in the sentencing process. Leary (2017) asserts that criminal justice players need to place adequate mechanisms to ensure that correctional services reduce recidivism. It is unfortunate to spend a considerable chunk of taxpayers' money on catering for the needs of prisoners only for them to go back to crime on release. I the same breath, the criminal justice stakeholders ought to reconsider the death penalty as a form of punishment that elicits mixed reactions. It is imperative to weigh its benefits against its consequences to establish if it is a viable punishment option. To this end, the criminal justice system should be grounded on the principles of equality, justice, and fairness in its correctional aspects.
References
Abramovaite, J., Bandyopadhyay, S., Bhattacharya, S., & Cowen, N. (2019). Alternatives to custody: Evidence from police force areas in England and Wales. The British Journal of Criminology , 59(4), 800–822. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azy056
Alper, M., Durose, M. R., & Markman, J. (2018). 2018 Update on prisoner recidivism: A 9-year follow-up period (2005-2014). Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf
Demleitner, N., Berman, D., & Miller, M. L. (2018). Sentencing law and policy: Cases, statutes, and guidelines . Wolters Kluwer.
Enns, P. K. (2016). Incarceration nation. Cambridge University Press
Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2020, February 15). Inmate Race . https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp
Johnson, D. T. (2019). A factful perspective on capital punishment. Journal of Human Rights Practice , 11(2), 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huz018
Lantin, R. G. (2017). The death penalty debate: A look at the main arguments. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science , 7(3), 43-47.
Leary, J. S. (2017). A Biblical Critique of the U.S. Prison System. Journal of Christian Legal Thought , 7(2), 17-24.
Resner, J., & Statler, J. (2017). Pursuing justice for all. Journal of Christian Legal Thought, 7(2), 2-7.
Rhodes, W., Gaes, G., Kling, R., & Cutler, C. (2017). The relationship between prison length of stay and recidivism: A study using regression discontinuity with multiple breakpoints. Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/251410.pdf
United States Census Bureau. (2019). Quick Facts: United States . https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219#PST045219
Weidner, R. R., & Schultz, J. (2019). Examining the relationship between U.S. incarceration rates and population health at the county level. SSM - Population Health , 9, 100466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100466
