Punishment for Crime should be Individualized Essay

offensive activity and the penaltys for law-breakings defend been the way appear of takes for centuries. When asked, most hatful would hypothesise that state who bank crimes should be penalise for it in some way. When deciding however what smorgasbord of punishment should be given to the offender, is when the debate begins. The reason for the debate comes ab let on be work thither atomic number 18 significant differences in how mickle view punishment and what punishments should be utilise for dissimilar crimes.Most populate contend with the question of what kind of punishment is uninfected for the offender. In the past, mass have at meters been treated differently for very(prenominal) similar crimes, this created upset among the great deal who cried out for equal treatment for everyone. What those people weaken to realize is that equal is non eer join. Although some degree of structure in sentencing is needed, on that point should be some gross profit pr ovided in order to man-to-manize the conviction to make the punishment fit the particularised crime.In order to check what is considered fair and equal punishment, the first stair is to identify what punishment is. One explanation of punishment is the deliberate infliction of natural harm on an offender or his property without his consent because he is an offender, solely for reasons other than self-defense (Halliday, adjunct B.). In the effectual system, punishment is inflicted upon an offender as a direct firmness of purpose of cast out behaviors for the purpose of deterring future behaviors these ar called sentences. assorted members of society however have different ideas of what kind of punishment is fair.What some people regain is fair and just as a particular punishment for crime, others feel is cruel and inhumane. During some eras in history, sentences for crimes were non fairly and equally handed out to all citizens. People with mellower conjunction status were some epochs given b powerfulness or no sentences for crimes that other people were harshly punished for. Due to the differences in sentencing and an increasing crime rate, changes in the virtue and punishments were needed (Lehrer).In an attempt to make sentencing fair for everyone, President Ronald Reagan passed a Comprehensive Crime Control Bill on October 12, 1984 (Kaufman, 1). finished this, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 created The United States Sentencing relegating which developed a set of sentencing guidelines for specific crimes. These guidelines created mandate sentencing for anyone who committed certain crimes, which took remote all ability for the judge or jury to singleize sentences for individuals or for individual crimes (Kaufman, 1). Although these guidelines were developed with good intentions to provide the total and underprivileged with the very(prenominal) rights as the wealthy, on that point atomic number 18 other factors in crimes that were non taken into consideration.It is a well cognise fact that non all crimes are created equal. Murder is obviously a much serious offense than theft and should non have the alike consequences and few people would argue that the consequences should be the same. The hassle of pallidness becomes much of an issue when the end solvent of the crimes are similar. The motive or cause of the crime however might have been completely different. While it is easy to say that a punishment should be less(prenominal) severe for stealing jewels than for someone who takes a human life. The consequences however are the same for a soul who shoplifts a CD to avoid paying for it and a individual who steals a can of soup to hold a starving family. Because the end result is the same the law requires that the offenders be punished equally, but the motive in the issue is quite different. The same is true when comparability a person who commits murder all over a bad drug regard compared to a wo man who kills her husband subsequently years of suffering abuse.Because the sentencing guidelines are establish on the end result of the crime, want is not considered. Judges are required to pass sentence based on the authorisation sentence. Even over half(prenominal) of the federal official Judges would chose to eliminate the mandatory sentencing guidelines and 82.8 percent believe that settle would be better and to a greater extent(prenominal) efficient at choosing the sentence for crimes (Pratt, 1). If the guidelines were eliminated or at least changed, the judges, juries or discussion boards would have to a greater extent emancipation to take into consideration exceptional circumstances underside the criminal behavior. This would reintroduce the possibility for some mistakes or personal preferences, but it too allows for some compassion for crimes with less criminal motivation.The problem with mandatory guidelines has deceased so far as to invade the public enligh ten system. In schools, it is called the zero-tolerance policy. This policy was introduced into most public schools by and by the shooting at the Columbine, Colorado high school and the increased number of school shootings that followed. This policy states that any child, who brings a mechanism to school, exposes to or harms other students, or indicates contradictory ideation will be punished. The punishment ranges from disruption to actual criminal charges.The premise roll in the hay the policy is to take all threats seriously. The problem with it is that children are no longer allowed to be children. When children get angry they often threaten them, but due to the policy children are getting suspended from school and arrested for plan pictures of guns and for using dinnerware to peel oranges for lunch (Dart, 1). These rules, wish the mandatory sentence guidelines for adults takes all of the harsh sense and reason out of charge consequences for various behaviors.In Januar y of 2005 a authoritative Court decision provided some want for the future of fair sentencing. The court judgement declared mandatory guidelines unconstitutional (Edelstein, 1). This provides the judges a little more(prenominal) freedom to use desertion. The mandatory sentences are be quiet the default sentence, but based on the circumstances surrounding the case, the judge has the right to rule outside of the guidelines if appropriate (Edelstein,1). In these cases the judge can provide luminosity sentences to people whose special situations led them to commit a crime they otherwise would not have considered.Mandatory sentences often also include parole guidelines which mandate at what point in the sentence a criminal might be qualified for parole or if parole is charge an opportunity. In cases where an inmate can not ever be eligible for parole, at that place is very little motivation for the person to use positive behavior date incarcerated. The person in these cases have no hope of getting a decreased sentence because of merits accomplished while in prison. By providing the judges to choose the sentence, parole can be made more of an option to motivate criminals to choose refilling instead of continuing to have problems during the duration in prison. This would help lead to more people successfully universe rehabilitated. By providing more inmates the opportunity for reduced sentences and rehabilitation, there would be significantly less of a problem with prison overcrowding.Although the guidelines for sentencing were created to make the sound system and criminal punishments fairer for everyone, they have gone to the extreme and are now cause harm to some people. A statutory system that provided special treatment for the complete and famous was wrong, but a legal system that requires horribly abused women to brook the same sentence as a child killer is just as wrong. in that respect should be some introductory guidelines, but at the same time there should be provisions in which the motive of the crime and the background behind the crime should be taken into consideration. There is no such thing as a cookie cutter crime and there should not be changeless punishments to for the crimes.Every person is individual and when an individual commits a crime, a little time needs to be taken to larn the best and most effective punishment for that crime. Some people would benefit more from community service or therapy than being put in jail. Prison in many cases proves only to harden people and makes a person less in all probability to be able to adequately correct to society upon returning to it. Parents who have more than one child do not discipline all of the children in the same way for similar behaviors, because different consequences are more effective for different people. establish on this fact, the sentencing guidelines need to be re-examined and able to be sure that the best realistic consequence is given for eac h individual and each offense.Works CitedEdelstein, Jonathan. Sentence body structure 31 August 200526 February, 2008. Dart, Andrew. nothing Tolerance vs. Common Sense 19 December 2008.25, February 2008 Lehrer, Eli. Soft Cell. 9 June, 2003. 25, February 2008 AEI Short PublicationsPratt, Robert. Senseless Sentencing a federal Judge Speaks Out. 10 January 1999. diethylstilbesterol Moines Register. 25, February 2008Halliday,Roy. What Good is Punishment? 1 January 2003. Appendix B. What good is punishmentKaufman, Shari. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines A conventional and Impersonal undertake to Dispensing Justice. (1999) the Federal Sentencing Guidelines A Formulaic and Impersonal Approach to Dispensing Justice