Criminal sentencing in the United States


In the United States, sentencing law varies by jurisdiction. Since the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, all sentences in the US must conform to the requirements of the Constitution, which sets basic mandates while leaving the bulk of policy-making up to the states.
Despite the continued growth of federal criminal law, the vast majority of criminal sentencing takes place in state and local courts. Except for death penalty cases, juries generally have little involvement in sentencing, which is typically left to the discretion of the presiding judge. Sentences are typically pronounced by the judge in a separate hearing, after the jury has issued findings of fact and a guilty verdict, and in some cases after the probation department has carried out a pre-sentence investigation. The structure and jurisdiction of courts within a U.S. state are typically governed by state law, as are sentences and sentencing guidelines and regimes. There is enormous substantive and procedural difference between the criminal laws of the fifty states and the various federal territories and enclaves.
Each state is very different from every other state in terms of sentencing, and even what acts are crimes:
Some prisoners are given life sentences. In some states, a life sentence means life, without the possibility of parole. In other states, people with life sentences are eligible for parole. In some cases, the death penalty may be applicable; however, since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ring v. Arizona, a recommendation of the trial jury is required to impose a sentence of death.
The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a reduction of sentence time for most defendants who accept responsibility and plead guilty; further discounts are available to some defendants through fact bargaining, substantial assistance, and so on. Federal court statistics from 2003 show that the average sentence given for offenses resolved by guilty plea was 54.7 months, while the average sentence for offenses resolved by trial was 153.7 months. The practice of giving much harsher sentences when a defendant chooses to exercise the right to a trial by jury of his peers has been controversial, as is seen as a personal act of anger by the judge over "wasting court time."

Indeterminate sentencing

In some states, a judge will sentence criminals to an indeterminate amount of time in prison for certain crimes. This period is often between 1 and 3 years and 5–50 years on the upper end. The legislature generally sets a short, mandatory minimum sentence that an offender must spend in prison. The parole board then sets the actual date of prison release, as well as the rules that the parolee must follow when released.
During a long sentence, an offender can take full advantage of the programs that the prison has, including rehab for drug abuse or alcohol abuse, anger management, mental health, and so on, so when the offender completes the rehab or program he may be released upon request from authorities with a lower risk of recidivism. This process tries to combat the tendency of prisoners leaving incarceration after a long sentence to go back to offending in short order, without any attempt at correcting their ways.

Determinate sentencing

Those given short sentences usually serve the full-time as imposed by the judge, or might receive time off for good behavior, based on state or local rules and regulations.
In the mid-1970s, most state and federal prisons moved from long term to short term sentencing. Over time, though, state and federal authorities have gradually migrated their philosophies back toward long-term sentences. Many states use a mixture of the two; e.g., some offenders may receive sentences reduced by several months due to rehabilitation, counseling, and other programs, as well as good time.

Trends in sentencing law

Since the 1840s, many jurisdictions, including the federal courts, have adopted a practice of having a probation officer prepare a presentence investigation report to inform the court as to the defendant's characteristics, including his criminal record, if any. In the 1970s, the length of incarceration had increased in response to the rising of crime rates in the United States. By the 1980s, state legislatures began to reduce judicial discretion in sentencing terms and conditions. This was especially true in cases of life imprisonment, which between 1992 and 2003 increased by 83% due to the implementation of three strikes laws. Short term sentencing, mandatory minimums, and guideline-based sentencing began to remove the human element from sentencing. They also required the judge to consider the severity of a crime in determining the length of an offender's sentence.

Sentencing of killers

The United States does not have a specific guideline to sentencing murderers, including serial killers. When a killer is apprehended, he will be charged with murder, and if convicted can get life in prison or receive the death penalty, depending on in which state the murders took place. Generally speaking, each victim of a murder will merit a separate charge of murder against the offender, and as such, the killer could get a life sentence, a death sentence, or some other determinate or indeterminate sentence based upon the number of murders, the evidence presented, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances present. Such a compounded sentence may be tailored to run consecutively, with one sentence beginning after completion of another, or concurrently, where all or most of several sentences is served together.
Below are several examples of how a murderer may be sentenced, by state:

Arizona

In Arizona, a person is guilty of murder if an offender knowingly and intentionally causes the death of a person. The murder must be premeditated. If an individual is found guilty of murder, there are three possible sentences: 35 years to life, life without parole, or the death penalty.

Florida

In Florida, a person is guilty of first degree murder when it is perpetrated from a premeditated design to result in the death of a human being. Murder is categorized as a capital offense; if convicted, the offender will receive either the death penalty or life in prison without parole. A unanimous vote of a twelve-person jury, is required to sentence a person to death if they are convicted of capital murder.

Hawaii

In Hawaii, a person is found guilty of second degree murder when they intentionally and knowingly cause the death of another person. If the person intentionally or knowingly kills more than one person, or kills a law enforcement officer, a judge, or a prosecutor in the line of, or as a result of, their duties, a witness to a crime, or a defendant to a corroborated crime, or if he hires another party to kill a certain individual, the person has met the criteria to be charged with first degree murder. The State of Hawaii has no death penalty. If they are found guilty, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment without parole.

Louisiana

states that homicide in the first degree is killing of a human being with intent. There are other specific circumstances that may contribute, such as killing a police officer or a firefighter. Either of these offenses, or the killing of more than one person, is an automatic first degree charge. Louisiana provides for life imprisonment without parole or the death penalty for murder.

Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, first degree murder is defined as killing a person with premeditated intent to kill. The only possible sentence for first degree murder is life in prison without parole as Massachusetts does not have the death penalty. Second-degree murder carries a mandatory life sentence in prison, but with the possibility of parole after 15 years, which is the standard minimum non-parole period in the state for second-degree murder and most other offenses.

Michigan

In Michigan, a person is found guilty of first degree murder when murder is perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, or any other willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing. In Michigan, first degree murder carries an automatic life sentence without parole.

Nevada

In Nevada, first degree murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. If a killer is found guilty with aggravating circumstances, such as killing someone via torture or killing a stranger with no apparent motive, they may receive either the death penalty or life without parole.

Washington

In the state of Washington, a person is found guilty of first degree murder when there is a premeditated intent to cause the death of another person. Murder in the first degree is a class A felony. If a person is convicted of first degree murder, he or she will receive a life sentence. If an aggravating circumstance exists in addition to first degree murder, the defendant can be charged with aggravated first-degree murder, which carries only two possible sentences: death or life without parole. Aggravating factors include the killing of a law enforcement officer, murder for hire, or murder committed during the course of kidnapping, rape, robbery, burglary, or arson, or for multiple murders.

Criminal Sentencing of Women

Throughout the history of the Criminal Justice System in the United States, women have been held responsible for only 20 percent of total crime. Despite only committing a small portion of crime, women in the United States remain overrepresented in the Criminal Justice System. The United States generates 30 percent of all incarcerated women in the world, despite only comprising five percent of the female population. As such, multiple studies have been conducted to analyze the differences in the crimes committed by men and women, as well as the sentencing of such offenders. Typically, women have been found to hold an advantage over men in sentencing; however, the degree of preferential treatment varies by the type of offense committed. In regard to property and drug offenses specifically, women are less likely than male offenders to receive a prison sentence. When female offenders do receive a prison sentence, research has found women receive shorter sentences than male offenders for the same offense. The level of preferential treatment shown to female offenders was lower when the offense was in violation of gender norms. Women who committed more "masculine crimes," such as violent offenses or crimes against children, were not treated preferentially during sentencing. During his concurring opinion in Furman v. Georgia, Justice Thurgood Marshall stated, "There is also overwhelming evidence that the death penalty is employed against men and not women.":76 Within the scope of capital punishment, women are far less likely to receive a death sentence and even less likely to actually face execution. Between 1973 to 2012, women comprised only 2.1% of death sentences imposed at trial and merely 0.9% of persons executed. Women who are sentenced to death at trial are more likely to receive executive clemency than their male counterparts, despite their crime having more aggravating factors that may increase sentencing outcomes.
In an attempt to explain the preferential treatment that is shown to female offenders in criminal sentencing, researchers have developed theories that concentrate on the differences between the treatment of each gender by society. A possible explanation for disproportionate sentencing is the chivalry thesis which states that gendered stereotypes influence sentencing outcomes as women are considered childlike, less threatening, less dangerous, and not responsible for their behaviors. This theory also maintains that men are traditionally inclined to minimize the suffering of women as a result of their paternalistic desire and this behavior has been incorporated into the justice system as it is a male-dominated field. Judges primarily explained sentencing differentials as a result of childcare responsibilities that would create a larger social cost if mothers were incarcerated, illustrating direct applications of the chivalry thesis. Others argue the disparity in sentencing is merely the result of human error as a result of the dynamics of judicial decision-making. The focal concerns theory reaffirms this belief as this theory states that the sentencing disparity is the result of a judge's inability to spend a large amount of time on a single case and the incomplete information given to them minimizes their ability to make an fully informed decision. As a result, judges may unknowingly rely on generalizations of personal biases to guide sentencing decisions. In an attempt to prevent preferential treatment to particular genders, races, ethnicities, or socio-economic classes, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were enacted to create sentencing uniformity and equality. The enactment of these guidelines has since increased sentences given to women at trial; however, the disparity between male and female offenders persists as the internal biases influencing preferential sentencing have not been addressed.