Criminal Justice Components
Intermediate Sanctions
State and federal government are developing and implementing new options to decongest the overcrowded correctional facilities and minimize the costs as well as have effective management of high-risk offenders in the community. Imperatively, they are using intermediate sanctions in the sentencing of offenders, especially in criminal cases. Intermediate sanctions are penalties in criminal cases that do not entail probation or going to jail and prison (Petersilia, 2018). These sanctions are fall between imprisonment and probation and provide immediate punishment to offenders as an alternative instead of going to jail or serving on probation. Intermediate sanctions are innovative ways and programs focused on addressing the inherent challenges of the justice system, particularly the increased population of inmates. These remedies comprise of boot camps, intensive supervision model as well as house arrest with or with no electronic monitoring and monetary penalties in the form of fines and restitution. Other intermediate sanctions include compulsory labor through community services and use of halfway homes.
These programs are appropriate in different circumstances for law enforcement and fair justice process. For example, they offer an alternative to incarceration. At a time when the penal institutions are becoming costly to run while injuring individuals and being ineffective, the intermediate sanctions provide sufficient options to the justice process. Little empirical evidence exists to demonstrate that the correctional facilities prevent future offending and criminality since many inmates become repeat offenders after their release (Whitehead, 2017). Again, these sanctions are appropriate when dealing with offenders who have medical challenges and would wish to see physicians regularly for their reviews. Besides, people who make a commitment to effective integration into society require these programs. The sanctions are also appropriate when state and federal governments seek to increase control of the offenders, reduce the overall costs of running correctional facilities, and save money on expenses used in these institutions.
Sentencing Process
The sentencing process starts immediately after a defendant has been found guilty based on the evidence presented as decided by the judges or through a jury trial. The sentencing process begins when a jury provides its verdict on a criminal case. In many jurisdictions, a jury trial is the standard and jurors may take part in the final session. However, judges, as opposed to juries, determine the punishment upon sentencing, even in a jury trial (Berman, 2017). In many jurisdictions, jurors have instructions not to factor in the question of penalty in making the decision concerning the guilt or innocence of a defendant. In isolated situations, juries can participate in sentencing decisions. For instance, in capital punishment cases, juries can determine if the decision on the death sentence is appropriate. Making decisions based on discretion, apportioning punishment and determining the length of a sentence are critical components of the sentencing process.
However, in the sentencing process, judges face two situations, determinate and indeterminate sentences. Determinate sentencing arises due to statutes in states based on mandatory sentencing principle. The implication is that judges cannot exercise their discretion in jurisdictions with a compulsory sentencing model like the “Three Strikes rule.” Again, judges are restricted from giving harsher sentence unless juries conclude beyond any doubt that circumstances exist to warrant the punishment. Imperatively, the length of sentence, apportionment of punishment as well as imposing other sanctions are components that fall within the discretion of judges (Berman, 2017). On their part, jury verdicts, determine the appropriateness of a harsher sentence are elements that fall within the discretionary power of the juries.
References
Berman, D. A. (2017). Sentencing guidelines. Reforming criminal justice: A report of the
Academy for Justice on bridging the gap between scholarship and reform, 4, 95-116.
Petersilia, J. (2018). Alternative Sanctions: Diverting Nonviolent Prisoners to Intermediate
Sanctions: The Impact on Prison Admissions and Corrections Costs. In Minimizing Harm (pp. 115-149). Routledge.
Whitehead, S. N. (2017). Intermediate Sanctions. The Encyclopedia of Corrections, 1-4.