What if someone was forced to take the blame?

Reply back to student’s based on your own response. Ive attached my response as file fro reference. Amanda’s post: The concept of mandatory sentencing refers to when a crime that has been committed by a person, regardless of their age or prior records, they must serve a specific time or penealty because it has to have some kind of equality of reprocussions for similar crimes committed despite race, religion, gender etc compared to another person. Mandatory sentencing is suppose to make people weary of actions that would lead them in jail or leave them with an arrest record. While the idea seems to be a good one because it would be beneficial to someone who is aware of the severities that come with breaking a law, in some cases it isnt “fitting” of the crime. “Mandatory minimum sentences are exactly the same – because courts can’t tailor these sentences to fit the individual, many people get punishments that are too harsh for the crimes they committed.” (Mandatory Minimums in a nutshell, 2012) What if a person was truly unaware of drugs being placed in a bag or car? What if someone was forced to take the blame? First time and super young? Still can easily get years to serve and it being on a record that follows you effecting close to every aspect of everything for the rest of your life. Even in some cases, things that people considered normal now like weed can be taken into these scenarios because as many people hate the smell or idea of a drug being in neighborhoods and children etc it is now allowed with lesser penalties where before it carried a harsh penalties. Mandatory Minimums in a Nutshell. (2012, April 12).
Retrieved October 5, 2022, from https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/FS-MMs-in-a-Nutshell.pdf
Shi Daniel’s post: “Mandatory sentencing in all its forms, is not an effective means of reducing serious crimes” (186). Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predetermined term for certain crimes, which are usually violent and serious crimes. I agree with mandatory sentencing but I think it still needs work because it is supposed to reduce serious crimes and it isn’t always effective. The theory of deterrence is basically the belief that people generally want to avoid unpleasant experiences, so if the consequences or punishment for a crime is more unpleasant it will then deter more people. The general idea sounds efficient, however, it doesn’t realistically work in criminal justice typically. “Criminal law can be effective in reinforcing established behavior; it is not clear that it can be effective as the primary or the sole influence on peoples’ behavior” (134). The reason most of society doesn’t commit crimes is because of socialization – our families, religious upbringing, education, community, finding employment, etc. Furthermore, potential offenders have to believe there is an actual real risk of conviction and punishment, they have to know the consequences of law breaking, and be aware of the threat. Also, the death penalty didn’t receive much evidence to the relation between itself and deterrence. Capital punishment isn’t something that happens often either. Only 15% of those given a death sentence were actually executed. Reading this made me wonder, how effective could this be if it doesn’t happen often. Also, life sentences personally I feel like sometimes criminals feel like they have nothing left to lose and commit more crimes in prison. Drunk drivers were found to not be deterred by the arrests and punishments. For some it may work but for others it may not. Most people paired with social norms and laws may be effective, however, I don’t know if it is effective for criminals who already have repeated offenses.
Walker, S. (2015). Sense and nonsense about crime,drugs,and communities. Cengage Learning.

Leave a Comment