To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
Sentencing in the criminal justice system is a multifaceted process that involves a careful consideration of various factors to determine the appropriate punishment for an offender. Among the different types of sentencing, indeterminate and determinate sentences stand out as two prominent approaches, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. While both serve the dual purpose of punishment and rehabilitation, they diverge significantly in their execution. In this essay, we will explore the nuances of indeterminate and determinate sentencing, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses, and examine their efficacy from three distinct criminological perspectives: trait (psychological/biological), social (structure/process), and deterrence (classical/choice).
Indeterminate sentencing is characterized by its flexibility, allowing judges to impose sentences that vary in length and permitting early release through parole.
This approach aims not only to punish offenders but also to rehabilitate them. One of the primary advantages of indeterminate sentencing is its flexibility in tailoring sentences to individual cases (Siegel, 01/2013, p. 40).
Verified writer
Proficient in: Free Essays
5 (893)
“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”
Judges can consider the specific circumstances of the offender, the nature of the crime, and the potential for rehabilitation when determining the sentence. This flexibility ensures that not all situations are punished equally, recognizing that each offender is unique.
Moreover, indeterminate sentencing offers the possibility of early release from incarceration on grounds of good behavior, which can help alleviate overcrowding in correctional facilities (Portman). This mechanism encourages rehabilitation and provides inmates with an incentive to demonstrate improved behavior while serving their sentences. Additionally, it acknowledges that different individuals respond differently to punishments, allowing for a more tailored approach to rehabilitation.
However, indeterminate sentencing has its drawbacks.
Critics argue that it may not effectively deter individuals from committing crimes, especially if they perceive the potential for early release as a lenient punishment. For example, an offender sentenced to 1-5 years for a drug-related crime may view a one-year sentence as inconsequential, potentially leading to a cycle of repeat offenses. This raises concerns about the effectiveness of indeterminate sentencing in reducing crime rates.
On the other hand, determinate sentencing involves imposing fixed-term sentences for specific crimes, with the maximum sentence determined by legislative mandates (Siegel, 01/2013, p. 41). Under this approach, offenders are required to serve a set portion of their sentences, typically at least 85%, before becoming eligible for release ("Sentencing statutes and," 2013). Determinate sentencing is often viewed as a more punitive approach, focusing on the certainty of punishment.
The advantage of determinate sentencing lies in its potential to deter offenders from committing crimes. Knowing that they will serve a predefined portion of their sentence can discourage individuals from engaging in criminal activities. The stringent nature of determinate sentencing can act as a powerful deterrent, particularly when offenders understand the fixed consequences of their actions.
However, determinate sentencing does have limitations. It does not allow for the same degree of flexibility as indeterminate sentencing, as all offenders convicted of the same crime receive the same sentence, regardless of individual circumstances or potential for rehabilitation. This uniformity may be seen as unjust, especially in cases where mitigating factors exist. Additionally, while determinate sentencing can reduce crime rates through deterrence, it may not address the root causes of criminal behavior or provide opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
When examining the effectiveness of indeterminate and determinate sentencing from various criminological perspectives, it becomes evident that different approaches may be more suitable for specific situations. Let us delve into these perspectives and consider which sentencing model aligns best with each.
The trait perspective focuses on understanding criminal behavior in terms of an individual's psychological and biological factors. Some individuals may be predisposed to criminality due to their upbringing, family history, or innate personality traits. Sigmund Freud's theory of personality, which includes the id (driven by the pleasure principle) and the ego (the moral component), offers insights into how certain individuals may be more prone to criminal impulses (Cherry, 2014).
For individuals driven by innate criminal impulses and underdeveloped egos that cannot curb their criminal behavior, determinate sentencing may be the more appropriate choice. Some offenders may be resistant to rehabilitation efforts, and in such cases, the certainty of a fixed sentence can keep them away from society for a longer period, preventing further criminal acts.
The social perspective emphasizes the impact of an individual's social environment on their likelihood of engaging in criminal activities. Factors such as poverty, homelessness, abuse, neglect, subcultures, and deviant values can contribute to criminal behavior (Inchaustegui). In this context, the goal is to provide opportunities for offenders to learn from their actions and improve their lives.
Indeterminate sentencing aligns well with the social perspective as it allows for early release based on good behavior. During their time in prison, offenders have the opportunity to reflect on their actions, acquire an education, and access resources that can help them lead better lives upon release. Indeterminate sentencing offers the chance for rehabilitation and reintegration into society, particularly for those whose criminal behavior stems from social factors.
From the deterrence perspective, individuals are viewed as rational actors who choose to commit crimes after weighing the potential risks and rewards. Whether through classical deterrence (choosing to commit a crime despite the risks) or rational choice (committing a crime because it is advantageous), the focus is on assertive measures to dissuade offenders from criminal behavior (Criminology, 2014).
For individuals who commit crimes with full awareness of the consequences and in a calculated manner, determinate sentencing can be a potent deterrent. The certainty of a fixed sentence sends a clear message that the law will not tolerate criminal behavior. Offenders are less likely to engage in criminal acts if they know the exact duration of imprisonment awaiting them if convicted.
In conclusion, the choice between indeterminate and determinate sentencing is not straightforward, as each approach serves distinct purposes and carries its own advantages and disadvantages. Indeterminate sentencing offers flexibility and the potential for rehabilitation, making it suitable for cases influenced by social factors and those involving individuals with innate criminal impulses. On the other hand, determinate sentencing's certainty can act as a powerful deterrent, making it an effective choice for individuals who commit crimes through rational choice.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of sentencing models depends on the specific circumstances and the criminological perspectives applied. It is essential for the criminal justice system to strike a balance between flexibility and certainty, tailoring sentences to individual cases while ensuring that the consequences of criminal behavior are clear and unambiguous. By considering the traits, social context, and motivations of offenders, judges can make informed decisions on whether indeterminate or determinate sentencing is the most appropriate course of action, with the overarching goal of reducing crime and promoting rehabilitation in society.
The Complexities of Sentencing: Indeterminate vs. Determinate. (2018, Oct 17). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/determinate-and-indeterminate-sentences-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
