Introduction
Sentencing is the most essential but challenging step in the final step of ensuring justice in society. Different sentencing alternatives exist, and it is the role of the administrators to provide the appropriate sentence is imposed. Alternative programs such as being sent to drug rehabilitation centers for drug-addicted offenders are recommended other than being sent in prison ( Diamantis, 2017) . The paper is aimed at identifying the role of the court administrators in ensuring proper punishment as well as the factors that are considered in making the right choice when doing so. The paper will also discuss the importance of alternatives to incarceration and their impact on the correctional agencies administration.
The Roles of Court Administrators
Deterrence. The role of the judges and prosecutors is to ensure that no further crimes are committed given that the criminal justice system is meant to help in the rehabilitation of offenders and to provide retribution of the affected community. This is the most essential function of the court administration, and it is, therefore, the most concern of the judges and prosecutors during sentence prosecution despite the many alternative punishments that are available to them. In imposing the sentence, the sentence that has both general and specific deterrent effect is the one encouraged. This type of punishment is one which discourages the defendant and other people in the same situation from being involved in a crime similar to that which the defendant is convicted in the future.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Fairness. Sometimes the underlying facts about a case-control the sentencing results in which different persons convicted for similar offense get different sentences ( Rowden, 2018) . The prosecutors and judges tend to have different outlooks and philosophies towards sentencing and as a result, give different sentences to defendants with similar offenses. However, despite the many alternative penalties available the court administrators require that similar cases be treated similarly and keeping this principle in mind the judges and prosecutors ensure that disparity are minimized as possible during sentencing.
Community values. Apart from being the law enforcement officers, the prosecutors and judges are also the community representatives where they serve. It is the role of the court administrators to ensure that justice is served to the community offended ( Rowden, 2018) . In making decisions, the court administrators provide that among the sentencing alternative available that they give the best judgment in which the community agrees and accepts to maintain its values. By doing this, the administrators help in supporting the community's most held ideas of wrong and right as well as their sense of shared values and irrespective of other factors existing they must always pay attention to whether the result they suggest is consistent with the interest of the community in maintaining the benefits.
Cooperation and guilty plea. It is the role of the administrators in the court to make sure that the right punishment is given to those criminals who decide to cooperate in the investigation ( Faerman & Quinn, 2017) . It is only fair that such people should not be punished equally to those who do not cooperate. For those who plead guilty, the prosecutors and judges are inclined to moderate the sentencing recommendations.
Factors determining appropriate sentences
The offender’s past criminal record. A lighter penalty is imposed on an offender who has little or no record of committing crimes in the past while heavy sentences are imposed on those offenders who have committed many crimes before.
The offender as an accessory to the crime. If the offender was not the main actor in the offense, such that he helped the main offender a light sentence is imposed as opposed to the principal offender.
The state of the offender while committing the crime ( Rowden, 2018) . The administrators take into consideration the state in which the offer was in a while committing the crime. For example, the offender could have been under stress due to issues such as losing a job or had been in a car wreck and in this situation a light sentence is imposed.
Whether anybody was hurt. If in the event of the crime the offender hurt anyone or the crime was committed in such a way that someone was likely to get hurt the court administrators impose a more substantial sentence than where there was no same hood of someone getting hurt or where someone was indeed hurt.
Q2.
Alternatives to incarceration give the courts a variety of sentencing options. Offenders and crimes are unique in their way and not always that prison is the best option on conviction. In the presence of other options, the sentences can be tailored such that the offender does not have to go to prison and will still protect the public while rehabilitating the criminal. In this case, the options reduce the number of offenders who are sent to jail and thus the population ( Berman & Adler, 2018) .
When alternatives are imposed to reduce the prison population, they help in saving money that taxpayers pay. It is estimated that over $28000 are used to maintain a single person in prison for one year and it could be more than that in some prisons. Alternatives to incarceration tend to be cheaper and saves money. In New York, for example, it was evident that upon the reforming the drugs laws where drug-addicted offenders were sent for treatment other than being sent to prison saved $5144 per offender of the taxpayer's money.
When alternatives are chosen to reduce the population in prisons, they help in strengthening the communities and families. Being jailed or put in prison separates the offenders from their families for sometimes or even decades. Alternatives of incarceration ensure that the offenders are kept with their families and they also get jobs that earn them money and help in paying of taxes. The offenders also develop some sense of dependency and responsibility when not sent in prison because in those correctional facilities they live with anger and desire for revenge and are therefore not equipped with skills to cope with the society on release. Alternatives aimed at reducing population in prisons are essential in solving this problem.
Most when they leave prison tend to go back to the life of crime, and they end up being in prison again. The aim of courts to use other options of punishment to reduce population in prison in return help to reduce crimes protecting the public. Alternatives such as mental and drugs health courts reduce causes of crimes such as mental illnesses and drug addiction respectively helping them not to commit the crimes again or even new crimes ( Underwood & Washington, 2016) . For example, in New York, it had been seen that while prison population reduced by 17% between the year 2000 and 2009, it was also realized that the number of murders decreased to 414 in 2012 while before there were 2400 murders.
Alternative programs have had a significant impact on the administration of the correctional facilities in the sense that they reduce the number of prisoners allowing the administration to give more attention to the prisoners. The fewer the number of prisoners the better the management. The administrators can handle each prisoner individually helping them to rehabilitate themselves ( Koetzle et al., 2015) . Alternative programs also help to reduce the cost incurred in prisons as it has been observed that being in other institutions saves the taxpayers money unlike being in prison. In this case resources available in prisons are enough and helps solve the problem of limited resources.
Conclusion
Judges and prosecutors help in ensuring fairness in the imposition of punishments and the process they maintain the community values. The crime history of an offender and the position of the offender in the crime among other factors are considered in determining the sentence imposed. Alternative programs reduce costs, crimes and rehabilitate offenders, and they reduce the prison population.
References
Berman, G., & Adler, J. (2018). Toward Misdemeanor Justice: Lessons from New York City. BUL Rev. , 98 , 981.
Diamantis, M. E. (2017). Clockwork corporations: A character theory of corporate punishment. Iowa L. Rev. , 103 , 507.
Faerman, S., DiPadova, L. N., & Quinn, R. E. (2017). Judicial Leadership in Court Management. In Handbook of Court Administration and Management (pp. 197-218). Routledge.
Koetzle, D., Listwan, S. J., Guastaferro, W. P., & Kobus, K. (2015). Treating high-risk offenders in the community: The potential of drug courts. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology , 59 (5), 449-465.
Rowden, E. (2018). Distributed courts and legitimacy: What do we lose when we lose the courthouse?. Law, Culture and the Humanities , 14 (2), 263-281.
Underwood, L., & Washington, A. (2016). Mental illness and juvenile offenders. International journal of environmental research and public health , 13 (2), 228.
