Prison Sentences

Shemita Mosely

English 3303

Mr. Greenfield

04/15/2015

PRISON SENTENCES

(TRUTH IN SENTENCING)

Society has high expectations for criminal justice. Controlling the behavior of people is a difficult task, and there are several differing opinions on how this should happen. Many believe this can best accomplished by prevention through deterrence. Deterrence can be achieved from increased police patrols, good relationships with the community, and through tough penalties for convicted criminals. When deterrence fails, criminals need to be identified and held accountable for their actions. Law enforcement enforces many different crimes; some of the most serious crimes are violent crimes.

I chose to write about prison sentences because I hold this topic close to my heart. Before I was born my uncle Willie was arrested for murder in a small town in Louisiana. He was going to the store and walked up on a murder. He called the police and when the police got there they arrested him for murder with no questions asked and he was sentenced to life in prison where he does nearly 30 years later. The system had no evidence that he committed the crime or anything to hold against him but he was still convicted and sentenced to life.  I have read many stories and seen many movies where people who murder others get 5-15 years at the most and then they are released.  

I also have a relative name Sam who went to jail for selling drugs. At first he was given 5 years. The second time he got 10 years. But the 3rd time he got arrested they gave him 20-life.  Now this is where I get confused. I understand that illegal drugs are a crime and should be punished. But how can someone get more time for selling drugs than for murder.  I also wonder why my uncle got life in prison with no questions asked and others who murder only receive 10 years max.  I feel that prison sentences should be the same for any certain crime and all the time given for that crime should be served.

According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, violent crime is defined by four offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault (FBI, 2007). Defeating the threat of violent offenders is important to the safety of society. Many can agree safety is important; however holding offenders accountable varies from state to state. Traditionally, there has been disparity among sentencing violent offenders. One way to reduce this disparity is to have uniform guidance to help judges determine the appropriate sentences a violent offender should receive. Many have argued against the perceived truth in sentences, when violators are being released without serving the majority of their sentences for something they concider good behavior or whatever.

Each state is responsible for controlling crime. One area many states wanted to focus their efforts to combat crime was against violent offenders. In the 1980s, States enacted tougher punishments for violent offenders in efforts to lessen the disparity among sentences. These efforts included mandatory minimum sentences and Truth-in-sentencing. In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was passed. This crime act included an incentive formula grant program to build or expand correctional facilities and jails (Office of Justice Programs, 2010).
According to Brian J. Ostrom, Truth in sentencing is the most prominent sentencing reform movement of the 1990s (2001). Truth in sentencing was designed to closely align the sentence imposed by the judge with the actual amount of time served in prison by restricting or eliminating parole eligibility and good time. This violent offender incarceration and truth in sentencing initiative was amended in 1996 to promote reform by providing States grants to expand their prison capacity if they included truth in sentencing requirements to violent offenders (Rosich, 2005). This grant program was instrumental in many states adopting the truth in sentencing guidelines into their policies. To be eligible for grants, each state had to demonstrate they applied truth in sentencing laws, within three years truth in sentencing laws would be implemented. By 1999, 41 states and the District of Columbia passed laws or implemented some form of truth in sentencing; however each state varied in their applications.

Each states truth in sentencing policies regulated offender’s time in prison, each state chose different ways to do so. The basic sentence of time served may be determinate or indeterminate, for the states using indeterminate sentences this percentage can apply to the minimum or maximum sentence. Most states that used truth in sentencing reform included violent offenders required to serve at least 85% of their imposed sentence. Many states continue to use indeterminate sentencing. The state that my uncle got arrested in was Louisiana and although I am uncertain how they determine how to try a case, in the early 70’s it was not a fair and justice trial for a minority black male.