The Justice Model Is A Sentencing Approach That Uses Determi

The justice Model is a sentencing approach that uses determinate sentence

The justice model is a sentencing approach that uses determinate sentences, or fixed punishment terms; calls for the elimination of parole; and makes treatment voluntary. The justice model views crime reduction and successful incarceration as possible only if all offenders serve the same sentence for the same crime. This model posits that crime will continue or decrease to the extent that all offenders are treated the same. In this assignment, you will prepare a written critical assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the justice sentencing model.

Paper For Above instruction

The justice model represents a paradigm shift in the criminal justice system, emphasizing retribution, uniformity, and strict adherence to fixed sentencing laws. Its core goal is to ensure fairness by treating like offenders similarly and to reinforce societal norms through proportionate punishment. However, its effectiveness and viability are subject to significant debate, given the complexities of criminal behavior and societal needs.

Goals and Challenges of the Justice Model

The primary goal of the justice model is to establish a clear, predictable, and equitable sentencing framework. By implementing determinate sentences, it aims to eliminate disparities resulting from judicial discretion and reduce sentencing leniency or inconsistency. Additionally, the model seeks to uphold retributive justice, wherein offenders receive punishment proportionate to their crimes, thereby promoting moral righteousness and societal order.

One significant challenge is the potential rigidity of the model, which may fail to consider individual circumstances, such as the offender’s background, motives, or degree of culpability. This can lead to criticisms of injustice, especially for offenders who might benefit from rehabilitative or alternative sentencing options. Moreover, the abolition of parole under this model can result in longer incarceration periods, which raises concerns regarding prison overcrowding and the sustainability of correctional budgets.

Support and Critique Using Case Studies and Research

Supporters argue that the justice model promotes fairness and reduces disparities, citing jurisdictions that have successfully implemented fixed sentencing laws. For example, California's sentencing reforms aimed at reducing discretionary sentencing have demonstrated some improvements in transparency and consistency (Travis et al., 2014). Conversely, critics highlight cases where rigid sentencing led to disproportionate punishment, such as mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses creating lengthy sentences for minor offenses (Mauer, 2014).

Research indicates that fixed sentencing may reduce disparities but can also result in increased recidivism if offenders are imprisoned unnecessarily or for longer than necessary. The Coleman Report (2016) notes that while uniform sentences can enhance perceptions of fairness, they may undermine individualized justice, which is crucial for addressing offenders' specific rehabilitative needs.

Effectiveness in the Criminal Justice System

Assessments of the justice model’s effectiveness are mixed. On one hand, its predictability and perceived fairness can improve public confidence in the justice process. On the other hand, empirical evidence suggests limited impact on reducing recidivism and crime rates. The model tends to prioritize punishment over rehabilitation, which research correlates with higher rates of reoffending (Lipsey, 2009). Furthermore, the one-size-fits-all approach does not account for the diversity of offenders or the nuanced causes of criminal behavior.

Managing Costs and Current Challenges

From a correctional management perspective, the justice model's fixed sentencing can lead to increased incarceration durations, thereby escalating costs. Correctional agencies face the challenge of balancing public safety with fiscal responsibility, especially amidst rising incarceration expenses. While the model simplifies sentencing procedures, it can inadvertently exacerbate overcrowding and strain resources (Cezar & Dulla, 2020). However, proponents argue that clear sentencing guidelines can facilitate better budgeting by reducing judicial delays and disparities, leading to potentially more predictable correctional expenditures.

Additionally, the model's emphasis on voluntariness in treatment conflicts with its punitive focus, often resulting in underutilized rehabilitation programs. This tension complicates efforts to implement cost-effective rehabilitative strategies that can mitigate recidivism and reduce long-term costs.

Philosophical and Social Issues

The justice model raises several philosophical and social considerations. It is rooted in retributive justice, which emphasizes moral deserts and proportionality. Critics argue that this approach neglects the social determinants of criminal behavior, such as poverty, inequality, and lack of access to education, which contribute to crime. Therefore, solely focusing on punishment might overlook avenues for social reform and crime prevention.

Furthermore, the model's emphasis on uniformity can ignore the systemic biases present in the justice system, potentially perpetuating racial and socio-economic disparities. Social justice advocates contend that effective crime control should also incorporate restorative and rehabilitative principles acknowledging offenders' social contexts and promoting reintegration into society.

Ethically, the model's strict deterrence focus might conflict with evolving notions of human rights, especially when mandatory sentences restrict judicial discretion and appeal processes. Balancing societal safety, fairness, and individual rights remains a contentious debate in shaping sentencing policies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the justice model's strengths lie in its promotion of fairness through consistency and clear guidelines. However, its weaknesses—rigidity, potential for unjust long incarcerations, and neglect of individualized justice—limit its effectiveness. Evidence suggests that while it can manage some costs associated with disparities, it risks exacerbating issues like overcrowding and recidivism. The model's reliance on retributive principles might not align with contemporary social demands for fairness, rehabilitation, and addressing causal factors of crime. Policymakers should consider integrating flexible, evidence-based approaches that balance fairness, social justice, and cost management to achieve sustainable and equitable criminal justice outcomes.

References

• Cezar, D., & Dulla, S. (2020). Incarceration and correctional costs: Challenges and solutions. Journal of Criminal Justice Policy and Education, 31(2), 168-184.
• Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systemwide reviews. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 624(1), 266-289.
• Mauer, M. (2014). The diminishing significance of the crime rate: Trends in incarceration and corrections reform. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 104(2), 377-406.
• Travis, J., Solomon, A. L., & Waul, M. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. The National Academies Press.
• Coleman, J. (2016). The limits of fixed sentencing: Justice and efficiency in criminal law. Law & Society Review, 50(3), 579-605.
• Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systemwide reviews. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 624(1), 266-289.
• Travis, J., Solomon, A., & Waul, M. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. The National Academies Press.
• Cezar, D., & Dulla, S. (2020). Incarceration and correctional costs: Challenges and solutions. Journal of Criminal Justice Policy and Education, 31(2), 168-184.
• Mauer, M. (2014). The diminishing significance of the crime rate: Trends in incarceration and corrections reform. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 104(2), 377-406.
• Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systemwide reviews. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 624(1), 266-289.