Rehabilitation and reintegration of inmates into the community are the primary aims of punishment in the legal system. Along with protecting victims and the community, rehabilitation for victims and the community and promoting offender accountability are several other aims of sentencing. There are numerous efficient strategies for collective justice. These include suspect mediation, a distraction from prosecution in return for compensation, settlement of fines, or involvement in therapeutic interventions; fines for severe crimes; suspended jail terms; community service; and various types of monitoring and peer treatment (Tonry, 2019). This paper will discuss sentencing goals of correction and elaborate on how effective is the current sentencing correctional system.
The four major sentencing expectations of corrections—retribution, deterrence, debilitation, and rehabilitation—are intended to be met by the current correctional system. Punishing violators may function as retribution and pacify a thirst for justice or vengeance. Retribution is the concept of punishing people in order to punish or fulfil a sense of fairness. The Eighth Amendment forbids the use of harsh and abnormal punishments making retribution not the best way to approach sentencing goals of correction. With that in mind, this approach was proposed in the US eighth amendment, and it should also repair the harm and heal the victim and community affected.
Rehabilitation entails penalizing violators and helping individuals change their behaviour and become a contributing part of society. This issue is probably important to judicial actors who act as gateways to rehabilitation services. We point to prosecutorial recommendations for intensive drug rehabilitation as an alternative to imprisonment as an example of a move restricting access to treatment programs and maybe generating racial and cultural inequality (Galvin, 2021). Carroll records that Considering convict risk variables and avoiding recurrence may include therapeutic consideration, and concern with offenders’ welfare and restoration may be indicated in community security.
Incapacitation is the process of laws that criminalize offenders and eliminate them from the community in order to protect potential targets. Miethe discusses that the use of incapacitation has such a rich history and has lately been focused on selectively incapacitating those due process individuals who pose the greatest risk while offering shortened or substitute forms of incapacitation to those who present a lower risk to function as offender impediments (Plantz, 2022). The motive behind this approach is that the punishment will deter other potential violators. The other target is direct victims who are deterred from re-offending.
The current correctional system has strengths and weaknesses in achieving sentencing correction goals. The goal is to heal the offender following the context and the affected population. The current system finds it difficult to micromanage outcomes of proceedings to success throughout the Nation. This would have meaning and give equality only if legislators and the political fraternity acknowledged this (Tonry, 2019). It is difficult to regulate sentences and eliminate inequities in the federal or state processes since various local traditions, distinctive local customs, and pragmatic and ideological needs of governments and agencies guarantee substantial regional differences in detailed integrated
Existing sentencing and correctional systems are costly and unsuccessful, leading to a disproportionate amount of cash being spent on imprisonment and other detention institutions without the desired results. By altering release conditions, they can attempt to reduce jail overcrowding and maintain correctional expenses under control (Tonry, 2019). They can adjust monitoring and conditions to meet the needs of specific parolees. They should also inspire inmates to work after their goal of an early release. This way, the intent of correction will be achieved for the individual and the community outraged.
Disparities concerning race, religion and socioeconomic status affect the system periodically, with individuals from certain groups substantially more likely to end up behind bars than others. According to research on sentiments regarding criminals, people express more favourable attitudes towards female offenders and toward offenders who are part of a dominant ethnicity (Levy, 2021). Results demonstrate that the citizen status of perpetrators has a larger influence on their attitudes forward perpetrators than their affiliation with a religious minority or majority. Minority group violators who were not Israeli citizens—Africans—were made responsible significantly more frequently than ethnic minority violators (Arabs) and social category delinquents (Jews) who were Israeli citizens. Based on studies as to how offenders’ features impact criminality
Conclusion
The present judicial and correctional system could be better because it is costly and regularly falls short of its purpose. This underlying issue could be strengthened to better achieve its goals of reintegration and rehabilitation with increased surveillance and procedures and awareness of imbalances. The Eighth Amendment forbids the use of harsh and abnormal punishments making retribution not the best way to approach sentencing goals of correction.
Referencing
Galvin, M. A., & Ulmer, J. T. (2021). Expanding Our Understanding of Focal Concerns: Alternative Sentences, Race, and “Salvageability.” Justice Quarterly, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2021.1954234.
Levy, I., Cohen-Louck, K., & Herzog, S. (2021). Predicting support for community corrections: Crime type and severity, and offender, observer, and victim characteristics. Punishment & Society, 146247452198980. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474521989805
Plantz, J. W., Neal, T. M. S., Clements, C. B., Perelman, A. M., & Miller, S. L. (2022). Assessing Motivations for Punishment: The Sentencing Goals Inventory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50(1), 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221131954.
Tonry, M. (2019). Fifty years of American sentencing reform: Nine lessons. Crime and Justice, 48(1), 1–34.
write