Truth In Sentencing Analysis

In the case of Atkins v. Virginia, Daryl Renard Atkins is accused of the kidnapping, robbery, and murder of Eric Michael Nesbitt. Atkins was also charged with use of a firearm while committing each of these offenses ("FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.”, 2017). Atkins was convicted of capital murder and related crimes, by a Virginia jury and sentenced to death, but his case was appealed to the Virginia Supreme Courts, on the grounds that it is unlawful to put to death a person who has intellectual disabilities (Mental Retardation). Virginia Supreme Courts upheld the decision of the Virginia courts

In other words, Billy White would have been classified as mentally retarded or intellectually disabled. In 2002 Atkins v. Virginia ruled that executing mentally retarded individuals violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Unfortunately, during the time White was executed there was nothing in place to protect the intellectually disabled.

Statistical elaboration has shown that decreasing the prison population does not affect the well being of the community. Diminishing overcrowding within our jails should be of great importance for state administrations. Our President Barack Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act into effect in 2010. The method must be two-fold: first, understand how the Fair Sentencing Act works, and second, put a greater emphasis on the recommendations given in reducing the disparity in sentencing.

The second supporting argument that Parliament imposes the judiciary to place too much emphasis on incarceration is characterized by the reduction of credit for pre-sentence custody credit. Fortunately, this was amended in 2014. The Truth in Sentencing Act, one of the government’s early “tough on crime” laws was passed in 2009, but became operative on Feb. 22, 2010. This Act contributed to the changes regarding the credit offenders received for pre-sentence detention or “dead-time,” that does not count towards any parole or early release eligibility. This curbed judge’s ability to give a break on sentencing when a convicted offender has spent lengthy time in pre-trial jail custody. This discount in sentencing had evolved to recognize that

Truth-in-sentencing laws do not deter crime.  The federal truth-in-sentencing law guarantees that certain violent offenders will serve at least 85% of their sentence (Schmalleger, 2012).  However, if the offender acts accordingly in prison, he or she can attain parole for good behavior.  What about the victims? Victims do not want to hear this.  If an offender is sentenced for 30 years, the victim wants justice and wants to see the full 30 years served.  They do not want to see the offender getting

The truth-in-sentencing law eliminates or restricts inmates from being eligible for parole and receiving good-time credits (Ditton & Wilson, 1999). Through the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 the United States’ Congress authorized funding to build more jails and state prisons (Ditton & Wilson, 1999). In 1998 twenty seven states, as well as, the District of Columbia received incentive grants for meeting the eligibility criteria for their Truth-in-Sentencing programs (Ditton & Wilson, 1999). The last three decades of sentencing reform includes: indeterminate sentencing, determinate sentencing, mandatory minimum sentences, sentencing guidelines, and truth-in-sentencing (Ditton & Wilson, 1999).

According to Banks, the amount of prison spending has increased six times from 1983 to 2008, and “the correctional population has tripled in 25 years.” (Banks, 2013, p. 139) The United States alone holds the highest percentage of incarceration in the world. In addition to racial discrimination, and offenses targetting minorities, the biggest issue in our prison system is the fact that most of these prisoners are held in prison longer than they should in which they await for trial. It’s sad to think that as an alleged offender who requests a speedy trial does not reach his date of trial as fast as it is said to be. According to the Miami-Dade County daily jail population statistics, the longest stay of a inmate who is still awaiting trial for 1st Degree Murder in 4,358 days which is roughly 11 years and 11 months, and currently there are 103 who are waiting trial with more than 4 years length of stay in prison. Our criminal justice system seems to be quite devistating and extremely disorganized when it comes to properly giving the alleged inmates their Constitutational right to a speedy trial. The United

Bobby James Moore was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death after shooting a clerk during a robbery. The petitioner challenge his sentenced by arguing that he was intellectually disable and, for that reason, needs to be discharged from the death sentence. The state habeas court concluded, by looking at previous courts decisions Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida, that Moore was intellectual disable and for that reason recommended to the upper court that the death sentence that Moore received was violating the Eighth Amendment. The upper court, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), did not accepted the recommendation of the state habeas court. Instead, the CCA stated that the lower court use invalidated guides and wrongly determine the intellectual disability of the petitioner. The CCA used older guides, called Ex parte Briseno, and with the factors proposed by that guide the court determine that it was sufficient evidence to declare that Moore did not have intellectual deficits. The high court granted the

This study found that even though a lot of states interacted the Truth in Sentence laws there was limited Federal pressure on State Truth in Sentence guidelines. Instead, state reforms naturally pre-dated the Federal legislation or were implemented in small increments adjusting to practices that already existed. What 's more, the study concluded that State Truth in Sentence usually augmented the anticipated duration of time to be served however, these augmentations were rarely the most important contributor to the increase in prison population. However, changes in crime rates, prison admissions and arrests were the most influential (Rosich & Kane, n.d.)

A recently released study indicates that the state of New Jersey is currently incarcerating 31% less people than its peak prison population.

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.

Truth-in-sentencing laws were designed to reduce the disparity between court-ordered sentences and the time offenders actually served (Brunt, 2015). According to USLegal Definitions (n.d.), it requires inmates to serve a substantial portion of their sentence before release is eligible. Under the truth-in-sentencing law, policies such as goodtime, earned-time, and parole board release are restricted or eliminate (USLegal Definitions, n.d.). According to Drizin (2015), In the mid-1990’s the federal government provided financial incentives to states to build correctional facilities and to implement truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimums and other policies that increased of sentences of juveniles convicted in criminal court.

Victims can pursue one or even a combination of three distinct goals. The first is too see to it that hard-core offenders who act as predators are punished, The second is to use the justice process as leverage to compel lawbreakers to undergo rehabilitative treatment. The third possible aim is to get the court to order convicts to make restitution for any expenses arising from injuries and losses. Punishment is what comes to most people’s minds first, when considering what justice entails. Throughout history, people have always punished one another. However, they may disagree about their reasons for subjecting a wrongdoer to

Despite some states already outlawing the execution of the mentally retarded, it was not enough to form a national consensus and, thus, was not able to be applied nationwide as a result. However, this was all overturned in the Atkins v. Virginia (2002) case. Despite there still not being a national consensus formed—after all, only 16 additional states had enacted the laws which prohibited the execution of the mentally retarded, and another 12 and the District of Columbia having gotten rid of executions altogether—there was an obvious change in how the mentally retarded were being viewed. As a result, it was beneficial for the justices to sway in favor of Atkins rather than rely on

This case was debating whether a mentally retarded criminal can be sentenced to death. A man, by the name of Daryl Renard Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. After a day of drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana, Atkins and his accomplice, William Jones abducted an airman from a nearby Air Force Base, and robbed him of the money in his wallet. When they were not satisfied with the money from his wallet, they forced him withdraw additional money. Following the abduction and robbery, Atkins shot the man eight times. Atkins was given a death penalty, while his accomplice was given life in prison. Atkins brought forth a case, claiming to be mentally retarded and that it would be “a cruel and unusual punishment”