Reference no: EM134008271

Question

In the criminal justice field, policy tends to act much like a pendulum. An initial policy will be written in one extreme, then when the public is dissatisfied with the outcomes, the new policy will be written in the opposite extreme, then when the public is dissatisfied with these outcomes, the policy pendulum will swing back. This is largely do to the politics of our legislative system. For example, when republicans/conservatives have voting power, they tend to write laws that are hard on crime and in favor of incapacitation and retribution.. When democrats/liberals have voting power, they tend to to be softer on crime and more in favor of rehabilitation than incapacitation or retribution. (These examples are somewhat stereotypical and simplistic, but they are helpful in explaining the extremes of policy-making in this country.)

Consider the current situation in America, where we acknowledge that mass incarceration is a significant problem and we have begun to make statutory and policy decisions to reverse this situation. Consider that for three decades, crime has been decreasing and crime is roughly half of what it was in 1990. Consider that we have tried extreme legislation that has favored Determinate Sentencing and we have tried extreme legislation that has favored Indeterminate Sentencing.

1. With the considerations above, explain what you believe would be a good strategy for America to guide it's future sentencing philosophy?

2. Carefully considering Determinate and Indeterminate Sentencing, which one makes more sense to you as a philosophy? (I am asking for your personal perspective.)

3. When you consider that the United States has an average crime rate when compared to other countries, do you think our current incarceration rates are appropriate? Explain your position in detail.