In the case of State v. Stu Dents, the jury found Dents, the defendant, guilty of several charges, including assault of a police officer, homicide, crimes related to drugs, and kidnapping. The charges on burglary were dropped due to insufficient evidence. In detail, the defendant was charged with the kidnapping and murder of his ex-girlfriend Uma Opee and the assault of Officer T. Chur while resisting arrest. Officer T. Chur sustained mild injuries such as a broken nose and a bruised face ( State v. Stu Dents , 2018). There was sufficient evidence proving that Mr. Dents kidnaped and murdered Ms. Opee, such as Mr. Dent's skin particles, proven to be his by DNA tests, under the victim's fingernails, which suggest a struggle between the two. Ms. Opee's body was found free of any drug samples because she had had a previous criminal and drug use record. Stu Dent's case is among the most mysterious homicide prosecutions in the state of California. Cases of love going sour leading to homicide have been on the rise. Sometimes crime calls an individual, and a slight moment of insanity becomes enough for one to be called a criminal for life. Mr. Dent is a victim of such a moment where he faced pressure, and the end product was him committing first-degree murder. On appearance to court, he did not deny committing the offenses and was held guilty after the mental assessment was done to confirm that he was actually in the right senses while admitting the crime. The fact that he is remorseful remains a significant contribution to the sentencing. Despite committing the crime, Mr. Dent left his DNA at the apartment and, as such, could not deny the crime. It was evidential that he had been the main perpetrator, and as such, the best way out was to plead guilty. The defense would only work his life out by having reasonable sentencing from the current case. The essence of sentencing is either to punish, deter the community, or offer retribution in the society. In as much as the victim might be hurting or their family, the primary purpose of the sentencing procedure is to offer a rehabilitation medium for the person. According to Schmalleger (2011), America believes people are changing, and so does California and the community would be wrong if they did not offer one of their own a chance to change and correct their mistakes. Mr. Dent committed the offenses, and that question is out of doubt, but society needs to give him a second chance. Having a second chance does not mean that he should be taken back to the community, but rather through experiencing justice in a way that he can truly change and be a better person even after coming out of prison. Stu committed first-degree murder, and the court found him guilty. The best alternatives for him and the defense would be: 25 years imprisonment under Sections 187-199 of the California Penal Code. A fine of $2000 under California Penal Code Section 243. The California Penal Code from Section 187-199 provides a minimum of twenty-five years of imprisonment and a maximum of a life sentence with no parole for the first-degree murders ( Lippman, 2019 p.2) . Stu committed the crime, but then society needs to give young people a chance to correct their lives. In as much as he is considered an outcast because of the crime he committed, it should be used to scatter his life away. He is an American citizen, and as a free country, the people believe in change ( Cohen & Yang 2019 p. 18) . For change to come, mistakes must be committed, and as such, Stu Dent committed one, and it is high time that his people showed their commitment to their word of forgiveness and change. The world is more structured towards giving the severest punishment, but the criminal justice system should strike a balance. Therefore, Stud should receive a lower punishment despite committing such a heinous mistake. The essence of sentencing is to rehabilitate. While punishment might come out as one reason, rehabilitation in the community is viewed as the long-term solution ( Lynch 2018 p. 21) . Stu is a first-time offender, and it would be harsh to put him in prison for longer than 25 years. At his age, spending the twenty-five years would be enough for him to acknowledge change and for the community to find good reasons to forgive one of their own ( Gabbidon & Greene, 2018 p. 12). He is remorseful about his action. He was a hurt man, and though he goes to the extent of kidnapping, he shows signs of lucidity because even at the time of arrest, he was not sober and was fighting off the officers. He is expected to change in rehabilitation, and finally, when he has changed, even before the twenty-five years, he should be released because the state would have achieved its purpose for him. Not only should courts be obsessed about helping the victim, but they should also look at the convict and see how to change their lives ( Fitz-Gibbon et al. 2019 p.12) . The court can set good precedence with such a decision because it would go a long way to inform the society that though people make mistakes, the courts have been structured to see them change rather than punish and deter. A life sentence would be harsh. Despite calls for a life sentence, as the defense, it is essential to call out the need for forgiveness to give reasonable sentences. The same community should give him other chances through the court. A life sentence means the person is staying out of the light of parents and family. Though it could be the perpetrator who is imagined to suffer, the family does the most because it faces no hope of their son coming back home ever ( Cohen & Yang 2019 p. 19) . Depression would be stealing into the family as they watch their son and brother crumble in a life sentence. Twenty-five years for young is enough time to serve justice. It should not appear as though they are being punished at the extreme, especially where the perpetrator has shown remorse throughout the trial process, which Dent was all through (Fisher 2017 p. 23). All that the defense needs are a second chance for their client. They are not calling for a release or an unreasonable demand, but just a considerate term for their client. Courts should deliver justice for all and not the victim alone. For the drug possession offense, it is considered to be a misdemeanor. When getting to this offense, Stu Dent has already been awarded the prison sentence. Though the law allows for the fine of $2,000 to go along with one-year imprisonment, since he has already been imprisoned for another offense and would be serving a long term, the court should be considerate and let him serve the minimum punishment, which is only the fine. It would be enough for him to pay the fine as he would already be in prison serving the twenty-five for the first-degree murder. Stu Dent will be subjected to more suffering if the court opts for the highest penalty in this case.
The remorseful nature of a guilty individual should be considered while deciding by the court. Stu falls in that category in that he is very remorseful over what happened and would like to change everything for the better. The only way the court can offer him a chance for change is by the lowest. The fine is no little money for him, considering that he will be in prison serving a long-term sentence for a while. Courts of law are supposed to offer solutions and not stretch revenge ideas. Most criminals turn vengeful when awarded the highest penalty because they become bitter, and their remorse shifts because no mercy is shown towards them at their lowest. In the case of Stu, the state of California needs to be interested in changing him for the better rather than sticking him out for punishments. He is a committed individual who looks into finding long term solutions for his life and the community through the court need to support his ambition. In sentencing, the defense should point out the primary considerations that the court should make in the current case. Looking at Stu Dent's condition, the primary considerations would be his age, his lifestyle, and the mental condition while committing those crimes. It should not mean that the courts would be awarding excuses but is a good ground for mercy. With these in the pocket, Stu Dent would receive a reasonable sentence that serves him best for the crimes committed in the form of 25 years and an extended fine of $2000.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Conclusion
Cases of homicide have been rampant in the United States for years now. However, in trying to stop the trend, courts need to be keen to rehabilitate perpetrators rather than going out to punish them. State versus Stu Dent is one keen case where the court would need to offer a lower sentence to rehabilitate the perpetrator rather than punish.
References
Cohen, A., & Yang, C. S. (2019). Judicial politics and sentencing decisions. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy , 11 (1), 160-91.
Fisher, K. (2017). No Time Like the Present, Except the Past Fifty Years: Why California Should Finally Adopt the Model Penal Code Sentencing Provisions. McGeorge L. Rev. , 49 , 661.
Fitz-Gibbon, K., McCulloch, J., & Maher, J. (2019). NSW Government Sentencing Council: Review of Sentencing for Murder and Manslaughter .
Lippman, M. (2019). Essential Criminal Law . SAGE Publications, Incorporated. Retrieved from: https://bibliu.com/app/#/view/books/9781544355962/epub/OEBPS/toc.html#page_7 Gabbidon, S. L., & Greene, H. T. (2018). Race and crime . Sage Publications. Retrieved from: https://bibliu.com/app/#/view/books/9781544334226/epub/OEBPS/toc.html#page_7
Lynch, N. (2018). Manifest injustice? The judiciary as moderator of penal excess in the sentencing of youth for murder. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice , 57 (1), 57-76.
Roberts, J. (2017). Informed Misdemeanor Sentencing. HOFsTRA L. REv. , 46 , 171.
Schmalleger, F. (2011). Criminology today: An integrative introduction . Prentice Hall. Retrieved from: https://bibliu.com/app/#/view/books/9780135778869/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP700101704400000000000000000F995.html#page_35
State v. Stu Dents , Maryland (2018). U.S Case Files.
Tonry, M. (2017). Making American sentencing just, humane, and effective. Crime and Justice , 46 (1), 441-504,
