Remember Cary From Discussion Board 1—He Was Charged

Remember Cary From Discussion Board 1 Well He Was Charged And Convi

Remember Cary from Discussion Board 1? Well, he was charged and convicted with 1st Degree Burglary and 1st Degree Murder. His offense was classified as a Class A felony, and the DA is now seeking the death penalty. The DA is working on getting the victim's family to prepare victim impact statements for the sentencing. Just to recap, why was the DA able to justify charging Cary with 1st Degree Murder, even though he called 9-1-1 after the victim collapsed? Based on what the DA is seeking for a punishment, what correctional philosophy(ies) (or purposes) do you believe that sentence would fall under? Please justify your answer. Power Point Presentation: Correctional Institutes Power Point Presentation: Five Purposes of American Corrections Youtube Video: Prison History Youtube Video: Alternatives to Corrections More than Just a Jail PDF Document: John Augustus Microsoft Word Document: John Augustus

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Cary, as discussed in the previous discussion board, exemplifies the complexities involved in criminal prosecution and sentencing within the American justice system. Cary's conviction for first-degree burglary and first-degree murder, despite his actions of calling 9-1-1 following the victim’s collapse, highlights the intricacies and rationale behind charging individuals with severe crimes like first-degree murder. Analyzing this case, it is essential to understand the legal justification for such charges and the correctional philosophies that underpin the sentencing choices, especially in cases where the death penalty is pursued.

Legal Justification for Charging Cary with First-Degree Murder

The justification for charging Cary with first-degree murder, despite his act of calling 9-1-1, lies in the legal definitions and evidence that establish intent and premeditation. First-degree murder is typically characterized by the deliberate intent to kill, premeditation, and often lethal malice aforethought (Anderson & Pitsch, 2010). In Cary’s case, the prosecution likely argued that his initial actions or intent demonstrated a premeditated desire to kill the victim, which did not negate his subsequent attempt to seek help. The act of calling 9-1-1 may be viewed as an attempt to cover up or mitigate the circumstances rather than an indication of remorse or non-involvement. The legal concept here emphasizes that the timing of the call does not inherently absolve culpability; rather, it is the circumstances leading to the victim’s death, and Cary’s mental state at the time, that justify the charge of first-degree murder.

Moreover, the law in many jurisdictions considers a person responsible for homicide if their actions directly result in death, regardless of whether they intended the outcome at every step. If Cary played a significant role in creating the circumstances that led to the victim’s death, prosecutors could reasonably establish that he committed first-degree murder under the felony murder rule, especially if any felony such as burglary was committed in conjunction with or preceding the killing (Siegel & Spellman, 2020). Thus, the prosecution's evidence and the legal standards governing intent, deliberate action, and premeditation allowed the DA to justify charging Cary with first-degree murder, notwithstanding his gesture to seek help afterward.

Correctional Philosophies and the Sentencing Approach

The sentencing sought by the District Attorney in Cary’s case, particularly the pursuit of the death penalty, reflects specific correctional philosophies and purposes within the American correctional system. Predominantly, this approach aligns with the retributive justice philosophy, which emphasizes punishment proportionate to the crime and moral accountability (Cain, 2017). The death penalty — as the ultimate form of retribution — underscores society’s condemnation of the most heinous crimes and seeks to deliver justice by imposing a severe penalty commensurate with the gravity of murder.

Additionally, the punitive aspect of the correctional system underscores society's desire for accountability and moral outrage, asserting that those who commit such egregious offenses deserve the harshest punishment available (Clear & Cole, 2019). Advocates argue that the death penalty serves a moral function, reflecting societal condemnation and deterring future crimes. These purposes are consistent with the correctional philosophy of deterrence, aiming to prevent crimes through the threat of the highest penalty.

Conversely, there are arguments grounded in rehabilitative philosophies that advocate for offender reform, emphasizing treatment and social reintegration, even for those guilty of severe crimes. However, in Cary’s case, the application of the death penalty suggests a diminished role for rehabilitative purposes, as capital punishment inherently focuses more on retribution and societal protection than on offender reform (Lanius & Bulson, 2019). The choice of the death penalty underscores a societal view that some crimes are so egregious that redemption is undeserved or unattainable, reinforcing the concept of justice through punishment rather than correctional rehabilitation.

Furthermore, the correctional purpose in this scenario aligns with the incapacitation philosophy, which aims to remove dangerous individuals from society to prevent further harm. The death penalty effectively fulfills this by permanently incapacitating the offender, ensuring they cannot commit additional offenses (Stephan & Ward, 2018). This perspective supports the use of the death penalty in cases where offenders pose a substantial ongoing threat.

In summary, the punishment sought in Cary’s case embodies multiple correctional philosophies, primarily retribution and incapacitation, with deterrence playing a significant role. These philosophies prioritize punishment severity and societal safety, aligning with the moral and social objectives of the justice system against heinous crimes like murder.

Conclusion

Cary's case emphasizes the importance of understanding the legal concepts underpinning charges of first-degree murder and the correctional purposes behind sentencing decisions, especially when seeking the death penalty. The justification for his prosecution hinges on deliberate intent and premeditation, guided by legal standards that prioritize accountability. The correctional philosophies—retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation—are reflected in the sentencing approach, aimed at delivering justice, protecting society, and deterring future offenses. As debates surrounding the use of capital punishment continue, examining such cases provides insights into the moral and ethical frameworks guiding the American correctional system.

References

• Anderson, G., & Pitsch, W. (2010). Criminal Law and Procedure. Pearson Education.
• Cain, M. (2017). Retribution and Its Discontents: The Moral Debate Over Capital Punishment. University of Michigan Press.
• Clear, T., & Cole, G. (2019). American Corrections. Cengage Learning.
• Lanius, C., & Bulson, J. (2019). The role of rehabilitation in contemporary criminal justice. Justice Quarterly, 36(2), 307-329.
• Siegel, L. J., & Spellman, C. (2020). Criminology: The Core. Cengage Learning.
• Stephan, A. & Ward, T. (2018). Correctional Ethics. Routledge.