Article Response

Name

Institution/Affiliation

Chapter 3:

Ethical Dilemma 3-1

                        Trac Reports (2012) states that an analysis of cases completed by the federal courts has extensively revealed that there are differences in terms of sentencing practices by the federal judges working in many federal districts. And so, sentences handed down by the federal district courts are dissimilar from the typical sentences issued out for the comparable and related cases by other judges in that very same district. As such, this proves to be unfair. For that reason, disparities in federal court sentences should be addressed by ensuring the courts' system under the provisions of the law dispenses ‘equal justice' (Damico, 1992). In consequence, this will lead to typical sentences handed down by the federal courts not being widely different for similar kinds of cases due to the systematic examination of sentences; that will create public awareness regarding the dispensation of justice through the court system.

References

Damico, A. (1992). The American Political Science Review, 86(4), 1049-1050.

Trac Reports (2012). Surprising Judge-to-Judge Variations Documented In Federal Sentencing, TracReports. Retrieved on 16^th September 2017 from http://tracfed.syr.edu/tracreports/judge/274/

Ethical Dilemma 3-2

            According to Staples (2012), the three strikes law can be described as a Kafkaesque criminal justice system that disregarded the fundamental principle of justice; as such the law disproportionately issued life sentences to black defendants. Additionally, under the three strikes law, low-level felonies attracted life sentences, as a result despite the law being punitive it also led to high prison maintenance costs. However, the amendment to the statute allows the imposition of life sentences to felony offense that are considered to be either violent or serious, as per the provisions of the California’s state law. In addition, Romano (2010) asserts that the law so that to correct the past mistakes ordered for a resentencing process for the low-level offenders who bear no threat to the general public. Therefore, the resentencing practice is aimed at changing the barbaric treatment of offenders, for instance mentally challenged defendants, who made up a significant number of the victim of the three strikes law.

References

Romano, M. (2010). Divining the Spirit of California's Three Strikes Law. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 22(3), 171-175.

Staples, B. (2012). California Horror Stories and the 3-Strikes Law, Sunday Review, The New York Times. Retrieved on 16^th September 2017 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/california-horror-stories-and-the-3-strikes-law.html