Chapter 9 Chapter Review: Punishment & Sentencing In the book, Criminal Justice in America, by George F. Cole, Christopher E. Smith, and Christina DeJong talk about punishment and sentencing in chapter nine. Punishment and sentencing are both a love/hate relationship to an individual. The reason being is because many people will receive the proper punishment and sentence but other individuals do not. Punishment occurs in order to maintain social order, but there is always that balance of fairness and justice. This has created that controversy of what is fair and what is not. In this chapter, it discusses the four main goals of criminal sanctions, which are; retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Also, restorative justice
…show more content…
There have been many court cases that have determined whether or not when it is okay to sentence someone through the death penalty stage. In the Alkins vs. Virginia case it determined that it is unconstitutional to execute an individual who was disabled. Or in the Roper v. Simmons court case where it determined it was unconstitutional to execute a minor under the age of 18. The court case that made its point about constituting that it is a cruel and unusual punishment was the Furman vs. Georgia. All of these court cases played such a huge role in the death penalty. That it left me wondering when it is really okay to appoint an individual who qualifies for the death penalty. And I know that serious crimes like federal murder, treason or terrorism can qualify someone to be appointed the death penalty but are all of those issues going to eliminate the problem itself. The 8th amendment tells us that there should be no cruel and unusual punishment so wouldn’t that make the death penalty …show more content…
The goals of punishment that are advanced by intermediate sanctions are retribution, and general deterrence. I think these two goals are being advanced by intermediate sanctions because although the punishment is less severe it does what it has to do in order to punish an individual. A punishment has to fulfill what it is expected to do; people are going to be punished for committing a crime that affects others. Based on that individual who committed a crime will show the public that if any more crimes are committed just like that one, there will be
There have been many court cases that have determined whether or not when it is okay to sentence someone through the death penalty stage. In the Alkins vs. Virginia case it determined that it is unconstitutional to execute an individual who was disabled. Or in the Roper v. Simmons court case where it determined it was unconstitutional to execute a minor under the age of 18. The court case that made its point about constituting that it is a cruel and unusual punishment was the Furman vs. Georgia. All of these court cases played such a huge role in the death penalty. That it left me wondering when it is really okay to appoint an individual who qualifies for the death penalty. And I know that serious crimes like federal murder, treason or terrorism can qualify someone to be appointed the death penalty but are all of those issues going to eliminate the problem itself. The 8th amendment tells us that there should be no cruel and unusual punishment so wouldn’t that make the death penalty …show more content…
The goals of punishment that are advanced by intermediate sanctions are retribution, and general deterrence. I think these two goals are being advanced by intermediate sanctions because although the punishment is less severe it does what it has to do in order to punish an individual. A punishment has to fulfill what it is expected to do; people are going to be punished for committing a crime that affects others. Based on that individual who committed a crime will show the public that if any more crimes are committed just like that one, there will be