Reference no: EM133468721

Case Study: I feel sentencing reforms should not be enacted because the system should not let everyone off easy. I believe deterrence is a better route than lightening sentences for offenders. I do understand the idea behind it, which is to reduce the number of incarcerated people. However, it won't help individuals learn from their actions. It'd become less punishment for them and, in some circumstances, a slap on the wrist. Which would then allow more individuals to go further into crime sprees.

I understand many individuals are choosing to commit crimes every day, however if the sentencing reforms should be enacted most of the criminals will get away with many charges. For example, the bail reform, there are many reoffending criminals that continue to commit crimes and they're continuously released because of the bail reform. That is until they commit a high offense crime, or they don't pay their fines. It's a reoccurring cycle with the bail reform. I understand the incarceration rates are extremely high but most of them are doing a minimum sentence and getting out. There aren't learning from their mistakes with the bail reform and the sentencing reform should not be enacted.

"The bill reduces from 25 to 15 years the enhanced mandatory minimum prison term for a defendant who uses a firearm in a crime of violence or drug offense after a prior conviction for such offense. A court may apply the reductions retroactively, after considering certain factors" (Congress, 2015). How is that ok? How is it that if the person uses a firearm in a crime of violence or drug offense after a prior conviction, they shouldn't be required to serve jail time? Or if someone commits murder? They should be required to serve prison time.

Yes, people make mistakes, and for some it happens at the wrong place and at the wrong time, but everyone should be required to take responsibility for their actions, even if it means they must be incarcerated. You made the mistake; therefore you have to deal with the consequences for your actions. Like the saying, you've made your bed now you lie in it. We shouldn't be able to drive under the influence of alcohol or substances and cause an accident and get out of it Scott free when it involves another person(s) life. That's not how the system should work at all. The person should be held responsible if the individual(s) life in the other vehicle was taken because someone made the mistake of getting behind the wheel after being under the influence of alcohol or drug substances.

Best to you in health and safety,

Autumn Michelle Scott

In response to your peers, consider how well they justified their positions, making use of available resources. Consider the following questions in your responses to posts:

Question 1: Did they support their position convincingly with appropriate resources?

Question 2: Which of their points make the most sense to you, even if you made a case for the opposing viewpoint?