Nash vs Mississippi Case
The legal framework aims at controlling crime and ensuring justice for all. Ideally, both the accused and the prosecution should have equal treatment before the jury. Punishments and correction measures operate based on four primary goals, namely; rehabilitation, retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation. Rehabilitation procedures ensure that the offender understands the need to change behavior and become a law-abiding citizen of the country. For instance, when the court jails a burglar, the offender should come out of jail with a changed behavior of avoiding burglary. Retributive justice operates on the premise that the justice system should make a law offender suffer in equal measure for committing a crime and, for instance, having a murderer sentenced to life imprisonment or death. In such a case, the offender suffers the same way the victim of the offense committed incurred. Thirdly, the deterrence theory of justice aims at preventing future commitment of a similar crime. For instance, a court of law sentencing an offender to the most extended jail term for the offense of robbery with violence. Whenever the public gets the policy change, potential future offenders will deter from committing similar crimes outside the confinement. Incarceration aims at denying offenders their rights as a way of preventing them from committing more offenses.
Does the majority opinion in Nash punishment fit any of the goals of punishment?
In the case of Nash v Mississippi, the court aimed at meeting the punishment goal of deterrence. After the Supreme Court argued that the offender received a lenient charge from the prosecution and subsequent leniency in judgment, many potential offenders would shy away from committing the crime. The controversial ruling by the Supreme Court worked on the precedence set by the law of giving offenders punishment within the set range depending on the severity of the crime or behavior of the offender (Nash v. State, 2020). The news made headlines across the country and worldwide as many people viewed the offense as a minor one that should attract lesser punishment. Despite the controversy, the penalty, according to the majority, meets the goal of the correctional system. Nash had a criminal history and, while already receiving rehabilitation in the prison facility, committed another crime. World over, technology has made it possible for inmates to defy incarceration goals of punishment. They sneak in phones and continue to communicate with the outside world freely, as discovered in Nash’s phone records. Sentencing inmates to three years, which forms the minimum punishment has failed to meet the deterrence as many inmates continue to access and use phones in prisons. In essence, the prosecution wanted to use Nash’s case to discourage inmates and future prisoners from attempting to possess pones while in prison.
The legal framework operates on the premise of ensuring crime control. When making judgments, courts tend to avoid emotive reason but rather stick to the constitution and the rule of law. Prisons act as facilities for holding lawbreakers, thus denying them the opportunity to commit further crimes indirectly or indirectly. Once in prison, rehabilitation takes place, and inmates must remain highly discipline to get parole. A repeat offender who breaks more laws in jail has failed to understand the aim of imprisonment. Nash’s behavior reveals a failure in the legal system to control crime. The judgment became severe to cause deterrence to the offender and the general public living in Mississippi State. Based on the goal of deterrence under punishment in the legal framework, the sentence given to Nash appropriately matched the circumstances.
Is the concur from Justice King effective as a concur or a dissent?
The decision by King in Nash v Mississippi is mostly a dissenting sentence. The concurring opinion refers to a situation where justice voted in the majority opinion in legal reasoning but agrees with the judgment (Nash v. State, 2020). The opinion gives a further legitimate explanation or a different application of the law in the case. The concurring opinion differs with the majority on the means of arriving at a decision but agrees with the decision made (Nash v. State, 2020). Dissenting opinion votes in the minority, and the opinion disagrees with both the outcome and the legal application. In response to the majority, the dissenting opinion offers valuable insights into the case and gives understandable reasons usable in future courts. King’s conclusion suggests that the situation needed a rehabilitative approach as opposed to the punitive one applied by the majority, thus making the opinion more of dissenting as opposed to concurring.
The majority made a ruling on twelve-years imprisonment based on severity and proportionate sentencing. They argued that Nash has engaged in a series of criminal activities, which makes him a repeat offender, thus needed to attract maximum sentencing. Secondly, the majority argued that the law gives the court permission to subject an offender to maximum imprisonment as long as it falls within the range set by the constitution. As long as the sentence remains within the range, the court of appeal has no justification for reducing the term. Thirdly, the majority argued that had the prosecution charged the offender as a habitual offender, then more severe sentencing would fit, making it grossly misappropriate. Currently, the courts operated with much leniency in giving the twelve-years term making it a proportionate sentence.
The opinion by justice King disagrees with all the legal paths followed in making the judgment on Nash’s case. The Judge blamed the criminal justice system for failing to take care of poisoners appropriately and making them commit crimes unknowingly. The honorable Judge blamed the prison department for the failure of officers to carry out a thorough search on prisoners before admission and ensuring no illegal items get into the prisons. The majority opinion should consider that the offender acted out of ignorance to have a cell phone in jail. The officer on duty night before the incident failed to testify to ascertain procedural admission of the prisoner as required in law. Justice King argues that rehabilitation and change of behavior remains one of the primary goals of the justice system. The accused had demonstrated a shift in behavior from past criminal activities, which warranted leniency. Finally, the victimless crime committed required a plea bargain with the prosecution as opposed to the sentence given. In totality, justice King dissented, having disagreed with both` the judgment and the legal reasons given for the conviction.
What will the State of Mississippi gain from Nash’s prison sentence?
Mississippi State currently has the largest prison population as compared to other Nato countries. The high number of prisoners indicate a high rate of criminal activities. High numbers also indicate high rates of incarceration from a strict judicial system. The punishment on Nash had the goal of ensuring deterrence, thus crime control in the state. Deterrence to the criminal activities applies both on the individual charged and the public (Nash v. State, 2020). The individual accused will avoid the temptation of committing a crime in the future for fear of getting harsh judgment while referring to the petty offense of Nash that attracted severe penalty. Secondly, the public will avoid breaking the law, however small to prevent the consequences that Nash faced in the judicial system. A reduction in new crimes and repeated offenders, the country stands to benefit from law-abiding citizens and fewer resources allocated to the corrective facilities.
The judicial approach of rehabilitation has led to an increased number of criminal activities in the country, as evidenced by the high number of convicts. Prisons in the state remain full at all times, leaving a few people to raise the GDP and sustain the national budget. The sentencing of Nash has raised uproars as it takes a different corrective policy as opposed to the norm. Mississippi Supreme Court has set a precedence of harsh punishments to ensure deterrence. Deterrence as a justice policy aims at reducing incidences of crime by making it have severe consequences, thus discouraging potential lawbreaking.
Incarceration facilities have the mandate of withdrawing the freedom of prisoners. The country has witnessed instances where incarcerated individuals coordinate criminal activities while in prison, for example, those involved in revenge or drug dealings. Also, in prison, fights have led to the loss of lives and destruction of state properties and, at times, escape of inmates. Setting severe penalties for petty offenders, for instance, those bringing illegal items to prison, will minimize the involvement of prisoners in activities taking place outside the prison and bring safety to inmates. Mississippi stands to accrue many benefits from the controversial sentencing of Nash by the Supreme Court.
References
Nash v. State, No. 2018-KA-01587-SCT (Miss. Apr. 9, 2020).
https://facultyweb.cortland.edu/ocallaghan/pdf303/nashMSPI.pdf
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/MS.html