The Southern Cross of the statements which would be developed for this recommendation paper is in support of keeping the position quo in the execution of prison term policies against individuals convicted of armed robbery in the State of California. The recommendation. it must be mentioned. is being proposed in position of an at hand State legislative ballot aimed at amending bing penal codifications pertinent to the above said issue. thereby duplicating the prison footings for anyone convicted of armed robbery.
This paper is non a direct dissent against the State proposal. Far from it! What this paper. on the contrary. intends to accomplish is to simply urge a moratorium on the approaching legislative ballot – a moratorium which shall be in topographic point up until such clip when the State – by approving formal surveies – would be able to adequately demo that any amendment to bing penal codifications would interpret to concrete and tangible benefits non merely for the general populace. but besides for the convicted captives themselves.
Methodology and Scope Since this paper attempts to give grounds to the above-said recommendation. the methodological attack with which this paper employs shall be both descriptive and analytical. At the really least. the tone of this paper shall be argumentative and expositive. Furthermore. for the interest of restricting the range of the subject of this recommendation paper – a wide one in fact – the bing Torahs of the State of California shall be used as a manner to develop the instance in point.
Existing Penal Policies The State of California. like all the other States in this state. squares with offense jobs by implementing rigorous policies against mistaking persons or groups. Specifically for felons who. after due hearing and judicial proceeding procedure. have been proven ( sensible uncertainties notwithstanding of class ) to perpetrate offenses which may affect armed robbery. the State metes out just penalty merely the same. Armed robbery is considered in California as a “violent crime” for the main ground that it “involves the usage of a ( deadly arm such as ) a gun or other piece during a robbery” ( San Diego Armed Robbery. 2008 ) .
When probe reveals that the event of robbery satisfies any of the undermentioned fortunes. so such a offense is said to be an case of armed robbery: foremost. that “the victim receives serious physical injury” secondary to the usage of deadly weapon” ; 2nd. that “the wrongdoer is armed with a deathly arm and that it is used or its immediate usage is threatened” ; and 3rd. that the wrongdoer. in his or her hope of arousing paralysing fright or panic from victims. “displays what appears to be a weapon” ( Griset. 1991. p. 7 ) .
The State stipulates that robbery is a felony punishable by two to nine old ages of imprisonment. depending on the extent and nature. However. for anyone who is convicted with “the usage of piece during the committee of the robbery” . an extra 10 old ages shall be added on top of one’s prison sentence ; and. when the piece is “discharged in the committee of the robbery” . a brawny 20 extra old ages shall automatically be appended to one’s otherwise already drawn-out imprisonment sentence ( San Diego Armed Robbery. 2008 ) .
Identifying Certain Ambiguities It is non without good grounds to claim that the bing penal judicial admissions of California. unless proved otherwise by reputable surveies. serve good the State for now. Amending such policies hence would ask foremost puting down a sufficient footing for it. Unfortunately. there are a few grounds which may be cited to reason that there may non be a sufficient footing for any moves to amend the bing policies. which appear to work rather good in the really first topographic point.
First. since it appears that the move to duplicate the prison footings of convicted armed robbers draws inspiration from the really broad support it additions from the general populace. the danger of overlooking the proper procedural procedures in finding prison footings therefore remains to be a legitimate concern that can non be dismissed. Prison footings are chiefly determined by legitimate factors such as the “seriousness of the offense” and “prior condemnable record of the defendant” ( Neubauer. 2004. p. 70 ) . These factors are the really ground why penalties for offenses are stratified into grades. extent and nature of committee. If the State therefore attempts to force for amending bing policies based on public sentiment – nevertheless indicative it is of a lopsided public support for stiffer penalty – it would look that such a move would neglect to use appropriate legal considerations. This would so amount to a misdemeanor of the rights of the convicted criminals.
Harmonizing to Neubauer. when certain “illegitimate attributes” – such as ethnicity. instruction. economic position. gender or sexual orientation. including negative public perceptual experience – of the felons are used against them in the finding of their several sentences. the tribunal ( or State for that affair ) is said to perpetrate “sentencing discrimination” in the procedure ( Neubauer. 2004. pp. 370-371 ) . This is no less true for this peculiar instance.
Herein it is patent that the motivations for the proposed amendment stems from the negative public perceptual experience against armed robbers. expressed conversely in the broad public support the proposal generates. Second. it is on history of detecting a just sum of cautiousness that any moves to amend bing prison policies must see to it that it would non compromise the rehabilitation of felons as an of import facet of poenology. Penal penalties are usually understood to be motivated by two main terminals: retributive and rehabilitative intents.
It both seeks to render justness on the one manus. and rehabilitate felons “with the end of reconstructing them to utile lives” on the other manus ( The World Book Encyclopedia. 1995. p. 441 ) . It would be gratuitous to state that public support for longer prison footings stem from their retaliatory desire to function justness no affair what. Which is why. the State’s attempt to provide to the public desire for longer penalty footings on retaliatory evidences appears to pretermit the rehabilitation of captives as a legitimate concern every bit good. Surely. the State can non simply ‘please’ the populace at the disbursal of prisoner’s public assistance.
Third. it is extremely unsure for now. at least without pertinent scientific findings. to claim that duplicating the prison term for convicted armed robbers will in fact significantly deter future cases of offenses. and similarly make more in rehabilitating captives. First. it has is to be admitted that an effectual crime-punishment system helps discourage offenses. But this tendency is merely affirms the correlativity between “the higher fraction of inmates ( who ) go to prison” and the “lower lower rates of crime” ( Will. 2008 ) ; and non of the reverse proportion between the length of prison footings and offense rates.
Second. it has to be acknowledged that duplicating the prison footings of those convicted of armed robbery. as so of any offense. certainly raises serious inquiries as to its effectivity and cost: Would the move to topographic point inmates behind bars longer than their fit length of stay be good for their rehabilitation plan? Would it interpret to better consequences as a manner to counterbalance the significantly higher support to defray such an augmented plan? By Way of Conclusion: Recommendation for Status Quo
As a manner to reason. this paper – as hinted in the Introduction – recommends the continued execution of the bing policies pertinent to penalty of armed robbery in the State of California. Along the same vena. this paper suggests a moratorium on the vote of any legislative assembly seeking to augment prison footings. up until formal surveies sanctioned by the State itself are able to cast visible radiation into the ambiguities leveled in the class of the treatments. In the event that such ambiguities be adequately addressed and thereby dismissed. so it is merely the clip that the State would hold a strong justifiable cause to continue with the vote.