Annotated Bibliography on Institutional Affiliation - Paper Example

Different criminal reform areas have evolved over the past 50 years. Both public opinion and policy have played a significant role in this reform, and as a result, a lot of changes has been experienced. The criminal reform that will be focused on in this paper is the sentencing guidelines. This reform has been changing over the past 50 years, and its different studies show that it's still continuing to improve (Wright, 1991). Public opinion is playing a significant role in this change, especially in situations where they feel that human rights are being oppressed. Sentencing guidelines are mainly used by judges when, for example, they are determining the outcome of different cases. In the past, judges used to follow a set of guidelines when they were working on cases (Stith & Cabranes, 1998). These guidelines determined their judgments and they were made public so that everyone could understand the law.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In the past criminal offenses used to be judged based on a set of guidelines that involved the concerns of the offender and the offense. The offender, in particular, was mainly focused where his or her life history was the primary focus (Stith & Cabranes, 1998). Its this life history, together with other few facts that used to affect the judges decision on whether the offender was guilty or not. After considering both sides of the offender and the offense, the judges would then choose a sentence that they deemed fit for the offender (Wright, 1991). Sentencing guidelines have changed, particularly in the United States of America where this section of the government determines the punishment of different criminals. This nation has used the Federal Sentencing Guidelines since its introduction in the twentieth century, and their main function has been to determine the judgment of serious felonies (Stith & Cabranes, 1998).

Due to the much-improved technology over this years, sentencing guidelines are nowadays based on many things. One of the most important aspects of these guidelines that have been introduced is evidence. In the past, evidence could not be obtained easily due to lack of proper technology to conduct an investigation on crimes (Stith & Koln, 1993). However, judges can nowadays make their decisions quickly based on the evidence that they are presented with. Such evidence is in the form of videos and pictures (Stith & Koln, 1993). Federal Sentencing Guidelines have been known to evolve from a point where they were being followed by only some states such as Michigan and Utah (Alschuler, 1991). These states form the initial stages where sentencing guidelines were developed in the United States (Breyer, 1988).

In this paper, the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines has been used as an example of the criminal justice reform (Stith & Koln, 1993). This is because its one of the important sentencing guidelines and it has been changing rapidly over the past 50 years. As stated earlier, this guidance considers both the intensity of the offense and the wrongdoer's criminal history (Alschuler, 1991). The seriousness of the offense is divided into different levels which enable most judges to determine which sentence to give the offender (Breyer, 1988). The 43 different levels that characterize these guidelines are organized in such a way that the lower the level, the less serious the sentence is. Serious sentences are considered to be on the upper level (Stith & Koln, 1993).

Different issues are included in sentencing guidelines. These issues will be discussed in the paper to give a more understanding of this criminal justice reform. Federal Sentencing Guidelines will be used as an example to address these issues due to its general components. Its composed of different issues that determine different things such as the length of the sentence, the final verdict of whether the offender is guilty or not among other things (Alschuler, 1991). Some of these issues include base offense level. This level is used to determine the category in which a case should belong to according to its seriousness (Breyer, 1988). The other issue is specific offense characteristics which are the factors that categorize each case (Berman, 2005). Fraud, for example, is a case which has more specific offense characteristics and based on the amount of capital it was composed of, its offense level is considered to be high. It can, therefore, be seen that these issues are related in some ways (Berman, 2005).

Annotated Bibliography

Some of the different sources that will be used in this paper include;

Alschuler, A. W. (1991). The failure of sentencing guidelines: A plea for less aggregation. The University of Chicago Law Review, 58(3), 901-951.

Over the past 50 years, sentencing guidelines have continued to change regularly. Due to these changes, public opinion has viewed the guidelines to fail at some point due to the fact the sentencing guidelines cannot maintain consistency. Different issues have been discussed in this source concerning the sentencing guidelines such as criminal sentencing and criminal justice. Sentences on these particular fields have sometimes been considered to be fair to the offenders, and some of the general public feel that they should offer harsh punishment to the law breakers. By doing so, criminals can be discouraged from engaging in their illegal acts and consider other means of earning their income.

Berman, D. A. (2005). Distinguishing offense conduct and offender characteristics in modern sentencing reforms. Stanford Law Review, 277-291.

Due to the latest introduction of various reforms in the sentencing guidelines, confusion has occurred among the public concerning the offense conduct and the offender characteristics. As a result, the public opinion has varied, and different people have ended up interpreting these guidelines the wrong way. Therefore, in this source, a clear distinction between the two is introduced and people, specifically the citizens of the United States of America can distinguish between the two as stated in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. A brief history of how the two fields have changed over the past 50 years is provided so that the public can even further get a better understanding of these guidelines.

Breyer, S. (1988). The Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the fundamental compromises upon which they rest. Hofstra L. Rev., 17, 1.

Different issues that comprise the Federal Sentencing Guidelines have been reviewed in this source. These issues enable the public to become aware of the guidelines and as a result, understand how decisions at different government institutions such as courts works. The public will therefore never be confused about some of the decisions made by judges since they have an understanding of the law. Different ways in which these guidelines have been changing over the past 50 years has also been discussed in this source, and this also creates awareness among the public on different changes to expect in the future. Public opinion has contributed to some of the changes in various issues. For example, the comprehensive crime control act was formed based on the public opinion and policy in the year 1984. This act has ever since maintained consistency in that no changes have been made to it once the public views were represented.

Stith, K., & Cabranes, J. A. (1998). Fear of Judging: Sentencing guidelines in the federal courts. University of Chicago Press.

In this source, the importance of maintaining consistent sentencing guidelines is discussed. The changes in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines since the year 1987 especially when determining how crimes should be treated is considered. This source tries to argue that once guidelines have been set, they should remain the same way for some time due to the publics interest. People end up committing crimes unwillingly and find themselves facing harsh punishments due to the different changes made in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The source is, therefore, trying to look at the reform that Federal Sentencing Guidelines have taken over the past few years and how these guidelines have tried to maintain consistency for the sake of the citizens of America.

Stith, K., & Koh, S. Y. (1993). The politics of sentencing reform: The legislative history of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Wake Forest L. Rev., 28, 223.

A history of the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines is provided. In this history, an overview of the guidelines is provided. The different ways in which the public opinion have played a part in the changes of this criminal justice reform have been highlighted. Public policy was represented as well as the ideas from the public through different individuals such as Senator Edward and President Ronald. These representatives provided the public opinions thoughts on how different sentences should be decided such as criminal offenses. Through their thoughts, different acts have been introduced in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that are currently being used today. According to facts from this source, a Commission was presented in the year 1975 that led to different changes in the guidelines. Some of the changes were seen in the imprisonment cases and crime control measures.

Wright, R. F. (1991). Complexity and Distrust in Sentencing Guidelines. UC Davis L. Rev., 25, 617.

The source observes the different changes in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines due to the actions of various individuals such as judges and those who practice these guidelines. The changes introduced have occurred due to complaints from some individuals that the guidelines are sometimes too complex to understand. These people, mostly the practitioners as well as the federal judges have developed claims that earlier Federal Sentencing Guidelines have resulted in confusion among individuals who try to follow up the criminal justice system. Reformers are however being asked to control their thoughts concerning the changes that they are demanding for in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. This is because more changes have resulted to judges finding it difficult to follow up the different morals that used to be practiced in the past.

References

Alschuler, A. W. (1991). The failure of sentencing guidelines: A plea for less aggregation. The University of Chicago Law Review, 58(3), 901-951.

Berman, D. A. (2005). Distinguishing offense conduct and offender characteristics in modern sentencing reforms. Stanford Law Review, 277-291.

Breyer, S. (1988). The Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the key compromises upon which they rest. Hofstra L. Rev., 17, 1.

Stith, K., & Cabranes, J. A. (1998). Fear of Judging: Sentencing guidelines in the federal courts. University of Chicago Press.

Stith, K., & Koh, S. Y. (1993). The politics of sentencing reform: The legislative history of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Wake Forest L. Rev., 28, 223.

Wright, R. F. (1991). Complexity and Distrust in Sentencing Guidelines. UC Davis L. Rev., 25, 617.