Disparity Of Sentencing Essay

What can be done about the disparity of sentencing? More effective selection of jury and venue holds a significant supplemental opportunity that needs to be fleshed out but is a unique and hopeful angle suggested by research which bears acknowledgment. Culturally speaking, societal values and personal values must be effectively merged in the minds of officers of the court such as prosecutors and judges to instill a greater commitment to the true spirit and mechanism of due process. Plea bargaining also remains an effective tool though it needs to be improved. The current system of mass incarceration victimizes the accused who are poor, who are in large portion African-Americans . In these proliferating cases, to reduce the costs and time …show more content…
Constructive and progressive rehabilitation offers that. More general faith in rehabilitation would also go a ways towards easing concerns, bias or reticence or the need to appear tough on crime by judges and prosecutors. If sentencing can show wisdom and uniform prioritized equity through identifying prisoners who can change for the better, then public awareness of the existing rehabilitation programs is necessary to support this change in social opinion and the tough on crime conventions. Effective and visible rehabilitation strategies can make these changes. Research reveals that effective rehabilitation seeks to change individual offenders’ behaviors and thinking patterns, through following the following basic …show more content…
Applying HOPE principles over a larger scale is an effective illustration of implementing social programs at the institutional level in society. Research refers to the scaling of progressive constructive rehabilitation such as HOPE to adherence to the principles of dynamic concentration, where the Honolulu project represented the first large-scale attempt. Three innovations, which research sites as rendering the idea feasible include embodying the threat in a new judicial process he dubbed a "warning hearing." The second implementation was the use of sanctions less severe than revocation, through what Hawaii law calls "probation modification." As a result of the HOPE 's implementation, the typical sanction dropped from two weeks to two days in jail, with no apparent loss in the efficiency of deterrence. A third measure by Judge Steven S. Alm, in charge of presiding over the implementation, was to simplify the required reports from probation officers to exempt them from having to appear in court, which served to reduce the time costs of submitting violations to the court for sanctions. The format of the modification hearing is characterized as a much more summary affair than the standard revocation hearing, reducing court proceedings for