DISPARITY IN SENTENCING

Is There a Disparity in Sentencing in US?

Is There a Disparity in Sentencing in US?

Introduction

Criminal punishments are called sentences or judgment. Sentencing is the term employed to explain the process through which penalties for crime are enforced. Criminal sentences can entail incarceration (prison or jail), community guidance (placing limitations on wrongdoers by allowing them to continue their stay in society), fines and in intense cases, death.

Sentencing is the conclusion regarding what should be exercised to, for, or about the convicted lawbreaker. Mostly in cases, the authority to pronounce sentence must select between numerous possible punishments. This selection, logically, is determined by the purpose of sentencing. Four main goals of sentencing have been discovered over the past few years: retribution, treatment, incapacitation and deterrence. Furthermore an extra goal, restoration, has come out recently. In combination or alone, these purposes justify or explain the choice of sentences. (Kansal, 2005)

Sentencing as clarified by the purposes and definition is to provide justice without any kind of discrimination which includes, race, ethnicity, creed, gender and other. But besides the goals of sentencing, disparity has been widely observed in US as highlighted in (Doerner, and Demuth, 2010). But on the other hand, there has been a continuous claim from the state and judiciary that the system of justice or sentencing is clear and there is no disparity or inequality in the system.

This paper would attempt to answer is there a disparity in sentencing in the US. In this paper firstly, the journals and other relevant researches would be discussed relevant to the topic to understand the gravity of this issue. Secondly all researches would be analyzed and finally in the light of previously conducted research, the answer of the question would be drawn in conclusion that is there a disparity in sentencing in United States.

Research Review

The sentencing rule formulated in the 1980s were planned to assure fairness and uniformity in sentencing and to eradicate “lawlessness in sentencing” as referred by Judge Marvin Frankel (Stith & Cabranes, 1998). Those who proclaimed the federal sentencing rule indicated that limitations on judges' discernment to decide the suitable sentence would eradicate—or at least considerably decrease—unjustifiable inequalities in the sentences enforced on similarly situated criminals. They also anticipated that the federal rules for sentencing, which enforced to all District courts in the federal judicial system of US, would assure uniformity in sentencing nationally. The studies carried out up to now, though, labeled both of these suppositions, and especially the supposition that unjustified inequalities would vanish, into question. (Frankel, 1972)

The guidelines manual for federal sentencing (USSC §5H1.10, 2006) argued that the criminal's gender, creed, race, religion, socioeconomic and national origin positions are “not applicable in the decision of a judgment of conviction.” Furthermore, the rules expressly mention that several components “are not commonly related to the decision of whether a judgment of conviction must be excluded from the applicable rules range” (USSC Ch. 5, pt. H, §5H1.1-1.12, §5K2.0, 2006). Incorporated amongst the “particular criminal traits” that are “not commonly applicable” are ...