Analyzing Fairness in Sentencing: Senior Seminar Week 3 Discussion

This discussion post analyzes the concept of fairness in sentencing within the criminal justice system. It examines whether judges should sentence all offenders equally, considering factors like socioeconomic status, and explores the role of the victim in the sentencing process, including the impact of the crime. The post further delves into the fairness of habitual offender laws and the potential for double jeopardy, as well as the disparity between sentences for crack and powder cocaine. The author argues that while judges should consider individual circumstances, the core aim of sentencing is correctional and deterrence. The post references relevant legal literature to support its arguments, providing a comprehensive overview of the key issues surrounding sentencing fairness.

Running head: SENIOR SEMINAR WEEK 3 DISC 1
Senior Seminar Week 3 Disc
Name
Institution

SENIOR SEMINAR WEEK 3 DISC 2
Week 3 Discussion
Fairness in Sentencing
The Due Process model has added many procedures to the criminal justice system
that are designed to ensure fairness in criminal proceedings. This week's discussion will
focus on fairness in sentencing.
When deciding on an appropriate sentence, a judge must consider many factors,
including the law, the rights of the victim, and any special circumstances that might
influence the final sentence.
Analyze whether judges should be required to sentence all offenders equally for the
same crime. For instance, should a homeless person receive the same sentence for
shoplifting as a person with assets and income?
In this kind of scenario, the two offenders have committed similar crimes as both were
involved in shoplifting. When a judge decides on a case it’s presumed that a judge should
follow the provisions of the law when arriving at a sentence. The two have different
situations and backgrounds, so when a judge is determining the most appropriate sentence for
each, all these factors must be taken into consideration. The offender who is homeless should
have a lesser sentence compared to the offender with income and assets upon a judge’s
discretion (Ashworth, 2015). The homeless offender could be the sole bread winner of the
family and may be could be having many problems compared to the offender who has
income and assets. However, there should not be much difference between the two sentences
but such factors should always be considered by judges.

SENIOR SEMINAR WEEK 3 DISC 3
What role, if any, does the victim play in the sentencing process? Analyze whether
the impact of the crime on the victim should be a consideration when determining his or
her sentence.
A victim plays a significant role in sentencing; through the victim the court can access
how much suffering the victim underwent. Sometimes victims are tortured both physically
and mentally hence exposing them to long term problems. The victim also plays the role of a
witness by taking the court through what happened and through this the court can determine a
sentence that fits the offence (McPeake, 2011).
The impact of a crime on a victim should be considered when determining a sentence.
Some victims go through a lot after commission of such offences, for instance victims of
gang rape may feel unwanted in the society after that ordeal, some experience trauma.
Therefore, the impact should be considered and the sentence given by a judge should have a
consideration of this.
Consider "habitual offender" laws which increase the punishment for certain
repeated felonies. Analyze whether it is fair to punish an offender's third crime more
harshly than the first, if the crimes were the same. Could it be considered double-
jeopardy to add to today's sentence because of a previous crime—which has already
been punished?
The main aim of sentencing offenders is for correctional and deterrence purpose. It is a
fair enough to punish a repeated crime harshly compared to the previous crime; this is done
so with the aim that the offender does not repeat the same crime. In a case where the same
offender repeats the same crime for a third time then the punished levied should be harsher

SENIOR SEMINAR WEEK 3 DISC 4
compared to previous punishment so as to deter this offender from repeating the same crime
in future (Demleitner et. al, 2018).
It cannot be considered as double-jeopardy because it would be two similar cases but with
different facts and parties with probably different witness. A matter of similar nature had
been decided before on the same offender but the facts in the subsequent case will be
different but it will stand out that the offender repeated the same crime.
Consider the disparity between the sentence for possessing or selling crack cocaine
and the sentence for possessing or selling the powder form of cocaine. At the federal
level, crack is punished far more harshly than powder. Analyze the arguments for and
against this disparity.
Crack cocaine being a form of cocaine which can also be smoked and has been termed as
the most addictive form of cocaine by some researchers is worth more harsh punishment. The
moment a person possess the crack, it shows their intention to use it as it is in its primary
form. Such people should be punished more harshly because they are the primary source of
the cocaine compared to those who sell the powder form of cocaine (Hannibal & Mountford,
2016). The disparity in punishment is justified as this helps to reduce the production of
cocaine.
On the other hand, it is not fair to punish those who sell or possess the crack more harshly
that those who possess or sell the powder because they have all committed the same crime.
The objective of the law is to punish and deter, both the two are selling cocaine whether it is
in which form and should receive the same punishment since punishing one more harshly
seems unfair.

SENIOR SEMINAR WEEK 3 DISC 5
References
Ashworth, A. (2015). Sentencing and Criminal Justice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Demleitner, N., Berman, D., Miller, L., & Wright, R. (2018). Sentencing Law and Policy:
Cases, Statutes, and Guidelines. Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer Law
& Business.
Hannibal, M., & Mountford, L. (2016). 21. Sentencing Procedure and the General Principles
of Sentencing. Law Trove. doi:10.1093/he/9780198765905.003.0021
McPeake, R. (2011). Criminal Litigation and Sentencing. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press, USA.