Corrections relates to the collection of agencies aimed at performing the responsibilities of carrying out orders of sentencing in criminal courts; this is the element in the criminal justice continuum contained in the criminal justice system (Chen, 2013). Corrections is composed of the probation authority, prisons, jails, paroling authorities, and the agencies that carry out community correction duties. In the U.S sentences range from restitution, suspended sentences, fines probation supervision, imprisonment times, community service to the enforcement of capital punishments. These sentences are structured based on the sentencing models. Sentencing models are strategies or schemes established with the aim of executing punishment for the committed offenses. Over the years, the sentencing of convicted criminals in the U.S had been found primarily on the rehabilitative model. The principal objective of sentencing was believed to be the rehabilitation of criminals; it was believed that every criminal’s sentence was structured to maximize his perspective for returning to the community as a law-abiding and productive citizen (Chen, 2013). However, towards the end of the nineteenth-century new sentencing models were instituted. The new models include the determinate sentencing, presumptive sentencing, indeterminate sentencing model, voluntary/advisory guideline sentencing model. The paper will analyze how these sentencing models impact corrections.
Determinate sentencing is a definite prison or jail sentence that is not subject to review by the board of parole or any other agency (King, 2015). The determinate sentencing model is composed of enhanced sentences for particular offenses, mandatory minimum sentences, and sentencing guidelines. Sentencing guidelines sanctions judges to appraise the individual case circumstances when determining a sentence. The statutes of enhanced and mandatory minimum sentences leave little to no volition to judges in establishing the sentence terms. The determinate sentencing model has a number of impacts on corrections. First, it eliminates the possibility of prejudice during sentencing in a trial. A predetermined sentence is, therefore, released with no consideration of the accused’s race, identity, or religion; this increases the authenticity of the corrections department. Secondly, it acts as a deterrent factor among citizens and this consequently facilitates the easy execution of the corrections department’s duties. Thirdly, it helps the corrections faculty to achieve a reliable form of policy-making procedure through linking the policies involved in correction spending and sentencing policies (Zhang et al, 2014). Lastly, determinate sentencing may lead to the increased population in prisons, this impacts negatively to the corrections department due to the intense pressure to control a large number of criminals in prisons.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Indeterminate sentencing model involves a prison sentence consisting of a range of years, for instance, a range of five to ten years; there is no definite period within a stipulated maximum (Zhang et al, 2014). Parole eligibility is usually established by the parole authority. Indeterminate sentences is found on the principle that prison will reinstate some convicts. The board of parole assesses various factors such as the behavior of the inmate, the inmate’s rehabilitation efforts, and his work efforts among other factors. Indeterminate sentencing impacts corrections in various. First, indeterminate sentencing model offers the corrections department the power to review individual cases and to alleviate the seriousness of sentences. Secondly, this model assigns the corrections department the power to enact decisions associated with the regulation of the population in prisons through paroling convicts following the overcrowding of prisons (King, 2015). Lastly, under this model, the politics involved in punishment have been insulated from the actual functioning of the criminal justice framework; this gives the corrections department authority over the administering of punishments.
References
Chen, E. Y. (2013). Is All Punishment Local? The Effects of Jurisdictional Context on Sentence Length. Social Science Quarterly , 94(5), 1372-1397.
KING, R. (2015). Balancing the Goals of Determinate and Indeterminate Sentencing Systems. Federal Sentencing Reporter , 28(2), 85-87. doi:10.1525/fsr.2015.28.2.85
Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., & Vaughn, M. S. (2014). Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Models: A State-Specific Analysis of Their Effects on Recidivism. Crime & Delinquency , 60(5), 693-715.
