Sentencing for those found guilty of crimes presents a difficult challenge because justice must be seen to done for both victims and perpetrators. Mandatory sentencing ensures that the same sentence is handed out for the same crime; however, judges lose the ability to adjust sentences and cannot take into account factors such as age and the possibility of rehabilitation. In this essay, the consequences of mandatory sentencing will be discussed.
Mandatory sentencing has the advantage that everyone is aware of exactly the sentence they can expect if found guilty of a particular crime. However, since people who commit crimes are often poorly educated and may not consider the consequences of their actions when they commit a crime, this approach may offer little benefit.
Removing the ability of judges to adjust sentences on the basis of the circumstances of a crime may also lead to injustice as it assumes that any two people who commit the same crime have the same level of moral culpability. For example, someone who murders in order to prevent suffering is morally different to someone who murders a stranger at random. Applying the same sentences in such disparate cases clearly would not serve the interests of either justice or the wider community.
In addition, it may be appropriate to give a young person who has committed a crime a lighter sentence in order to give them the opportunity to change their behaviour and become a productive and law-abiding citizen. In contrast, a person who is older and has committed many crimes should receive a heavier penalty as they are more likely to reoffend in future and heavier sentences are needed to protect the community.
In summary, mandatory sentencing may lead to injustice because the same crime may be committed for very different reasons. In addition, a person’s history and the opportunity for rehabilitation should also be taken into consideration when deciding sentences for those convicted of committing crimes.