Introduction
Sentencing guidelines are the principles that guide the limit of a sentence being given to an offender. These guidelines are essential to any state’s criminal justice system. They are designed to ensure that there is consistency as well as rigidity in the process of criminal justice. The guidelines are also designed to govern fairness in applying criminal punishments. The guidelines are created from the influence of public policies and founded based on society’s best research and practices. In this paper, we will analyze the sentencing guidelines for two crimes in Wisconsin: possession of drugs and assault. We will also compare the guidelines for juvenile and adult offenders. Also, try to compare the guidelines of Winston and another state, as well as those outlined by the federal government., additionally, we will focus on the public policies that have influenced these guidelines and explore the trends that have played a role in the influence of these policies. Finally, we will propose changes in the current criminal justice and guideline systems.
-
Sentencing Guidelines for Drug Possession in Wisconsin
Drug possession charges are a severe offense, so the state has set strict sentencing guidelines for individuals guilty of drug possession. (O’Brien, 2020) According to the statutes of Wiscon, possession of any amount of heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine is classified as a Class I felony, which is punishable by a fine of upto $10,000 and an imprisonment period of not less than 3,5 years(O’Brien, 2020). However, there is an alternative, such as probation and other programs.
As for juvenile offenders, the sentencing guidelines are different since, under the law status of Wisconsin state, juveniles found in possession of drugs are placed under probation; additionally, their cases are referred to the county’s human services for assessment and treatment(O’Brien, 2020).
Comparison between the Sentencing guidelines of Minnesota, federal government, and Wisconsin of Drug possession.
Compared with the federal sentencing guidelines regarding drug passion, the Wiscon guidelines are more lenient than the federal guidelines; The government has imposed a minimum sentence for drug possession regardless of the circumstances a judge must impose the minimum set sentence(Roth,2019). On the other hand, the Minnesota guidelines classify the offense into five different accounts, first on the basis of the quantity as well as the type of drug possessed, and consideration of if the offender has any prior criminal record. also the severity of the sentence may be affected by the circumstances that led to the crime( Frase, & Mitchell, 2017).
Public Policies and Trends that Influenced the Sentencing Guidelines for Drug Possession in Wisconsin
The public policies that have played a role majorly in influencing the Wisconsin drug possession guidelines include the war on drugs and the dire need to address the opioid epidemic. During the 1980s and 90s, the drug war led to the state implementing more harsh drug laws and mandatory minimum sentences nationwide. However, there has been a shift in public policy towards a more promising approach to drug possession charges, especially for nonviolent offenders. Also, the opioid epidemic has highlighted the dire need for alternative sentencing options such as treatment, rehabilitation, and incarceration(O’Brien, 2020).
Proposed Change to Sentencing Policies for Drug Possession in Wisconsin
In light of the current trends in public policy and research on the need and importance of alternative sentencing options, there is a need for the state of Wisconsin to review its guidelines regarding drug possession and opt for more efficient methods that are oriented toward the goal of treatment rather than orientating towards incarceration(O’Brien, 2020).
This can only be achieved through rehabilitating the offenders but not jailing them; the state may also Implement diverse programs that sponsor treatment and support nonviolent offenders(O’Brien, 2020). Research has been more than evident that these programs are more efficient in reducing any possibilities of repetition of these behaviors as well as improving the outcomes of the offenders.
-
Sentencing Guidelines for Assault in Wisconsin
Assault is considered a severe offense in Wisconsin, and the state has not been left behind in setting strict guidelines to ensure that the public does not participate in any form of assault, and those that do participate in an assault then they are found guilty of a crime. The Wisconsin statutes of the law outline that anyone found guilty of the crime of battery, of which assault is a part, shall be s charged on the seriousness of the crime (Reitz & Klingele,2019).
A simple battery offense is regarded as a class A misdemeanor which one is liable to a fine of $ 10000 and a jail term not exceeding nine months, but if the offense has an impact on the functionality of the body or simply causes a body harm it a class H felony which the offender is charged a fine of up to $ 10000 and imprisonment 6 years(Reitz, & Klingele,2019).
As for juvenile offenders guilty of the crime of drug Assault, the guidelines for the crime of assault are lenient; under the state statutes, the sentencing provides a more comprehensive range of alternatives from facing jailing, which include counseling, community services, and probation(Reitz, & Klingele,2019).
Comparison between Minnesota, federal government, and Wisconsin Sentencing guidelines of assault.
In comparison with other states and even with the federal government, it is essential that an individual gets to understand that there are unique laws in different jurisdictions and different peoples have different philosophies of the law, also different jurisdictions have unique approaches to criminal justice since they have different policies affecting the stem of criminal justice thus why the Wisconsin guidelines for assault may be considered to be more lenient (Roth,2019). In this regard, we will use Minnesota in the comparison case of Wisconsin sentencing guidelines for assault (Rold, 2020).
As earlier discussed, the crime of assault may be classified as either a felony or a misdemeanor considering the seriousness of the committed crime committed; when it comes to the misdemeanor charges, one is liable to a fine of $10 000, a maximum penalty of 9 months imprisonment, and a felony charge can lead to a jail term of 6 years and a fine of up to $ 10, 000( Egan,2018). In Minnesota also, the assault may be classified as toa felony or a misdemeanor, hover the penalties involved in Minnesota are higher than those accorded in Wisconsin( Egan,2018). A misdemeanor assault in Minessota can attract a penalty of about 90 days imprisonment and a fine of $1000, while a felony in Minessota attracts a 20-year jail term and a $30,000 fine( Egan,2018).
In a federal setting, the assault charges are either a misdemeanor or a felony; the classification is more dependent on the circumstances under which the crime was committed, not mainly on the severity of the crime. At the federal level, a misdemeanor of assault attracts a maximum penalty of one 1yer in jail and a fine of uprto$100000while a crime classified as a felony attracts a jail term of upto 20 years a fine of up to $250,000.
Public policies and trends have influenced Wisconsin’s sentencing guidelines for assault.
Some of the public policies that influenced the guidelines selected for the assault charge was the focus on reducing violent crimes as well as ensuring public safety, though with time; there has been growth in insight regarding the fact that mandatory minimum sentences are not as effective as they may have been thought or required to be(Rold, 2020). Hence, the justice system has been slowly adopting new restoratively ascribed strategies that help curb criminal behaviors.
Proposed Change to Sentencing Policies for Assault in Wisconsin
One of the most crucial changes that would happen is the adoption of a restorative justice approach. This could involve diverting nonviolent offenders from the system and involving them in community-based programs that can uproot the possibility of repetitive criminal behaviors(Rold, 2020). Research has also shown that the restorative approach of the criminal justice system is more cost-efficient than the traditional approach; by using this system, the body government will be able to divert the resources used to incarcerate individuals in prisons and reinvest in other productive means.
Conclusion
In summation, there is different law philosophy in different jurisdictions, and this is because the sentencing guidelines in different places are influenced to be in existence however, thus bringing out the different set sentencing guidelines at The federal level, from Minnesota and even from Wisconsin state. However, It is important to note that the mandatory minimum system is not as effective in the modern age; hence there is a need for the criminal justice system to adopt new restorative approaches to both drug possession and assault, especially in Wisconsin, and it will be cost-effective to the society and the state as well since it will avoid a case of redundancy and save many finances.
References
Frase, R. S., & Mitchell, K. L. (2017). Why Are Minnesota’s Prison Populations Continuing to Rise in an Era of Decarceration? Federal Sentencing Reporter, 30(2), 114–124.
O’Brien, E. (2020). A Willful Choice: The Ineffective and Incompassionate Application of Wisconsin’s Criminal Laws in Combating the Opioid Crisis. Wis. L. Rev., p. 1065.
Reitz, K. R., & Klingele, C. M. (2019). Model penal code: Sentencing—Workable limits on mass punishment. Crime and Justice, 48(1), 255-311.
Egan, G. (2018). Collateral and Independent Felonious Design: A Call to Adopt a Tempered Merger Limitation for Predicate Felonies of Assault under a Minnesota Felony Murder Doctrine Currently Too Productive of Injustice. Sua Sponte, pp. 44, 98.
Rold, W. J. (2020). Wisconsin Prisoner Granted Trial on Allegations of Sexual Assault by Counselor in Juvenile Institution; Supervisors Granted Summary Judgment. LGBT Law Notes, pp. 18–19.
Roth, J. A. (2019). Rehaif v. United States. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 32(1), 23–27.
write