ADJU 10 ASST

.docx

School

Mt San Antonio College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3

Subject

Sociology

Date

May 14, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by Lexxstevens17 on coursehero.com

Alexis Stevens ADJU-10-42821 March 10, 2023 1. Should one goal dominate how judges assign criminal sanctions? Why/why not? Assuming that there is more than one goal, how would you organize the different goals (for example: By the amount of harm that a person who commits a crime causes? By an individual’s criminal history? By some other factor?) Fully explain how you organized the different goals. I don’t think one goal should dominate how a judge assigns criminal sanctions. I believe they should take into consideration all aspects of the case as well as the offender. Although, I do believe a crime is a crime, and some punishments should be consistent across the board, each situation should be taken on a case-by-case basis. There will never be an instance of the exact same crime, with the exact same outcome, with the exact same factors. Therefore, they shouldn’t be punished as if there are. For example, say an offender is convicted of a DUI. They don’t cause an accident, they don’t hurt themselves, or anyone else, they simply had a few drinks and drove. I feel like there should obviously be consequences for this crime, but not as severe as someone who did the same thing but had it result in an accident or a death. Obviously the crime resulting in a death should be punished far more severely. 2. Can all individuals convicted of a crime be rehabilitated? Why/why not? What kinds of individuals are most likely to benefit from rehabilitation efforts? Why are these kinds of individuals most likely to benefit? How should the corrections system deal with people who are difficult to rehabilitate? Fully explain your responses. It is unfortunate to say, but no, I do not think all individuals convicted of a crime can fully be rehabilitated. I’m not saying some can’t, but most won’t be able to. Even though the main goal of rehabilitation is to treat the convicted individuals and not punish them, (Clear, Todd, R. et al. American Corrections - 12th Edition - Cengage Limited, 2018. Pg. 75) Sometimes it may not work. For an offender who had no sort of mental issues or wasn’t on drugs when the offense was committed, then yes rehabilitation such as therapy and other methods would more than likely help them. But if there is an offender who is mentally ill, or legally insane, then the standard forms of treatment wouldn’t help them. They would continue to see no wrong in what they’ve done because they are sick. 3. How much discretion should judges, prosecutors, and parole board members have in administering the criminal sanction? Should one of these positions enjoy higher levels of discretion relative to the others? If yes, what justifies such a view? If no, why should they all receive the same level of discretion? Personally, I feel that all three roles should play a significant part in administering criminal sanction. Judges may combine various forms of punishment in order to suit the punishment to the individual. (Clear, Todd, R. et al. American Corrections - 12th Edition - Cengage Limited, 2018. Pg. 75.) The judges, prosecutors, and the parole board are all extremely knowledgeable in the different laws and penal codes. Each one of these roles has a different outlook on the severity of the crimes and what they deem reasonable for punishment, but the overall deciding factor should go to the
judge. The parole board is more concerned to see if the crime would be eligible for parole, whereas the judge looks at the case and the offender overall and decides from there.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help