Sentencing.

Sentencing
May 20th , 2012

Sentencing is a major issue in our criminal justice system today. Here in the U.S, our courts have always struggled to maintain goals and balance our policies when it comes to criminal sentencing. Although the Eighth Amendment guarantees proportionality in noncapital criminal sentencing, federal and state courts have struggled when deciding individual cases, and the Supreme Court has failed to articulate legal rules that could promote the development of a coherent jurisprudence ( Lippman, 2007). Working within the governing law and building on the work already done by scholars who have focused on this problem. There are three principles: transparency, limited deference, and a "felt sense of justice," that could guide the process of proportionality review and contribute to defining a retributivist touchstone for proportionality judgments (Lippman, 2007).

The Death Penalty.

The death penalty in the United States is used almost exclusively for the crime of murder. Although state and federal statutes contain various capital crimes other than those involving the death of the victim, only two people were on death row for a non-murder offense (Victor L. Streib, 2004). No one has been executed for such a crime since the death penalty was re-instated in 1976. In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, held that the death penalty for the rape of an adult was "grossly disproportionate" and an "excessive punishment," and hence was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment (Victor L. Streib, 2004). The Court looked at the relatively few states that allowed the death penalty for rape and the few death sentences that had been handed down. Death penalty to juveniles is another controversial topic in our justice system today (Victor L. Streib, 2004). A lot of people think that the death penalty for juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment and should only be used for adults. The crimes that juveniles commit are as dangerous and as violent as adult crimes. People argue that the adolescent brain does not mature until the late teens or early twenties, and that death penalty should not be the resolution. Debate about the use of the death penalty for juveniles has grown more intense because of the crimes they are committing (Victor L. Streib, 2004). Juveniles that are sentenced to capital punishment are now more than likely going to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. A juvenile being sentenced to the death penalty is very controversial right now in the United States. Juveniles should not be sentenced the death penalty because when juveniles commit their crime they really do not understand the consequences of their actions. Adolescents do not think the same way as adults do, their emotions, judgment, identity and hormones are changing during this time (John J. Wilson, 2007).

Effects of Sixth Amendment on Sentencing.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Worrall, J.L, 2010) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense (Worrall, J.L, 2010)
Following rights have been secured:
1. Criminal defendants have the right to a speedy trial.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to a public trial is not absolute. In cases where excess publicity would serve to undermine the defendant's right to due process, limitations can be put on public access to the proceedings (Worrall, J.L, 2010).
3. The right to a jury has always depended on the nature of the offense with which the defendant is charged.
4. The Sixth Amendment requires the jury to be selected from a judicial districts ascertained by statute (Worrall, J.L, 2010).
5. The Confrontation Clause relates to the common law rule preventing the admission of testimony by one witness as to the statements and observations of another person to prove that the statement or observation was accurate (Worrall, J.L, 2010).
6. A criminal defendant has the right to be represented by counsel.
A criminal defendant may represent himself, unless a court deems the defendant to be incompetent to waive the right to counsel (Worrall, J.L, 2010).

Felony Murder Rule. The concept of felony murder originates in the rule of transferred intent, which is older than the limit of legal memory. In its original form, the malicious intent inherent in the commission of any crime, however trivial, was considered to apply to any consequences of that crime, however unintended (Grodin, C, 2008). For example, a poacher shoots his arrow at a deer, and hits a boy who was hiding in the bushes. Although he intended no harm to the boy, and did not even suspect his presence, the mens rea of the poaching is transferred to the actus reus of the killing. Some commentators regard this as a legal fiction whereby the law pretends that the person who intended one wrongful act, also intends all the consequences of that act, however unforeseen (Grodin, C, 2008). Others regard it as an example of strict liability, whereby a person who chooses to commit a crime is considered absolutely responsible for all the possible consequences of that action (Grodin, C, 2008). Lord Mustill regards the historical rule as a convergence of these views. In reality, situations are not as simple as the above summary suggests. Not all felonies will apply in most jurisdictions. To "qualify" for felony murder, the underlying felony must present a foreseeable danger to life, and the link between the felony and the death must not be too remote (Grodin, C, 2008). If the receiver of a forged check has a fatal allergic reaction to the ink, most courts will not hold the forger guilty of murder. Furthermore, the merger doctrine excludes felonies that are presupposed by a murder charge (Grodin, C, 2008). For example, nearly all murders involve some type of assault, but so do many cases of manslaughter. To counter the common law style interpretations of what does and does not merge with murder many jurisdictions in the United States explicitly list what offenses qualify. The American Law Institute's Model Penal Code lists robbery, rape or forcible deviant sexual intercourse, arson, burglary, and felonious escape (Grodin, C, 2008). Federal law specifies additional crimes, including terrorism, kidnapping, and carjacking. Felony murder is typically the same grade of murder as premeditated murder. In many jurisdictions, felony murder is a crime for which the death penalty can be imposed, provided that the defendant himself killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill (Grodin, C, 2008).

References:

Grodin, C. (2008, May 8). Felony murder rule should be killed. Retrieved May 20th, 2012, from NY Daily News Felony murder rule should be killed Web site: http://www.nydailynews.com
John J. Wilson (2007). Juveniles and the Death Penalty.

Lippman, M. (2007). Homicide. In Criminal Law (p. 405). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mandery, E. (2004), Capital Punishment in America, A Balanced Explanation. Jones and Bartlett.
Victor L. Streib (2004). The Juvenile Death Penalty Today.

Worrall, J.L. (2010). Criminal Procedure – From first contact to appeal (3rd Ed.).
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ