Justification for the Probation
Sanction Among residents of Virginia Cool and
Un-cool
By Ron Young
Justification for the Probation
Sanction Among residents of Virginia Cool and
Un-cool
Ron Young
The
study, “Justification for the Probation Sanction Among Residents of Virginia
Cool and Un-cool”, was performed by Norfolk University in Virginia,
(Payne et al, 2003).
This report analyzes probation and how comfortable the residents of Virginia
are with it, (Payne et al, 2003). The study deals with sentencing justification, deterrence,
in-compacitation , and rehabilitation. The study was provided as a telephone
survey of 840 registered voters to acquire information on three topics. The
first question asks,” How often would they recommend the probation sanction in
comparison to other forms of sanctions, (Payne et al, 2003). The second question asks,” How do
they justify the sanction relative to justifications for other sanctions?”. The
third question asks,” Are their justifications and sentencing recommendations
consistent across crimes”, (Payne et al, 2003). The aim for these three questions is to prove that
probation sanctions are the correct decision for the justification of
sentencing laws that are provided by the state, (Payne et al, 2003). Justifications of punitive measure
for the crimes include specific deterrence, general deterrence, retribution,
and rehabilitation, (Payne et al, 2003). The punitive measures include keeping the offender from
committing another crime, keep others from committing the same crime, punish
the offender, and treatment of the offender to prevent them from committing the
crime, (Payne et al, 2003). Justification for
the study, “Probation Sanction Among Residents of Virginia Cool and Un-cool”,
allots for Virginia residents to choose whether or not the judicial system is
doing their job, (Payne et al, 2003). The major question is if sentencing laws are making a mark
in stopping and preventing crime, (Payne et al, 2003).
Criminals
usually think they can get away with specific crimes because they are not as
serious as other crimes committed by most offenders. The “Justification for the
Probation Sanction Among Residents of Virginia Cool and Un-cool”, study follows
proper laws and procedures, sentencing rules for these laws include safety laws
given to corporations to keep them true to violations that oppose the quality
of work, other laws include drunk driving and drug usage, (Payne et al,
2003). Is the sentencing
proper across the board for corporations that do not follow proper OSHA laws
that enforce safety for those that work on job sites that require helmets,
welding shields, chemical outfits, and debris clearance, such as moving trash
is one of the question asked in the study, (Alarid, 2013),
p. 325, para. 5. Other justifications of crime include drug usage and
the sentencing regulations for enforcing regulations for usage and distribution.
Are these regulations enforced properly or do they need to make the regulations
more strict. The citizens are queried to
answer if the current laws actually keep recidivism away or do they need
rehabilitation services to complete the sentencing before probation is offered.
In many cases such as the cause of death, sentencing laws are not standardized
because death is a more serious offence than that of someone who has simply
committed a crime that no one else is hurt by.
Looking
into data can explain about how the area is doing. In the case of the state
doing well or not the state happens to be funded by the federal government this
means that the federal government actually provides sentencing laws that do not
relate to each other. The reasoning behind the sentencing is that drug,
driving, and white-collar crimes are treated differently by the courts. The
differences between the levels of punishment for sentencing of the crime vary
because of the veracity of the crime. If death is involved this automatically
turns what may seem to be a low-level crime into a high-level crime. The
example used is drunk driving and death caused by drunk driving the penalty for
drinking and driving may be a max of five years. The penalty for drinking and
driving and manslaughter could be a max of forty-five years. Knowing that the
act was not intentional then they may lower the penalty by allowing work
programs and possible probation. They could lower the penalty to twenty-five
years and work service as a speaker that explains to High school students about
how drunk driving can kill.
The
evaluators also want to find out how the public’s cultural values, beliefs,
morals, and norms affect the sentencing procedure, (Payne et al, 2003). They have found by other studies that the values seem
to change in states with big cities and other states that mostly consist of
rural and country areas. For example, New York State being larger than Virginia
and having a larger population would have lower stipulations for lesser crimes.
Crimes such as drug usage in New York would have lower punishments because of
its large metropolis being New York City. In New York the fines and probation
regulations would be lesser than the ones of Virginia simply because New York
is a larger state than Virginia. Virginia has a couple of smaller cities that
are not as large as New York City is, such as Arlington and Richmond, this
means the values in New York of course would be lower than the ones in Virginia
because of the surplus populace of New York. Having a larger state with more
residence changes the ratio that in turn usually lowers the cultural values,
beliefs, morals, and norms.
Graphs included with
the study that show results
Table 3.
Payne, B. K., Gainey, R. R., Triplett, R., & Danner, M. J. E.
(2003)
Sample Demographics
Table 4.
Payne, B. K., Gainey, R. R., Triplett, R., & Danner, M. J. E.
(2003)
Recommended Sanctions
Table 5.
Payne, B. K., Gainey, R. R., Triplett, R., & Danner, M. J. E.
(2003)
Sanctions by Punishment
References
Alarid , Leanne F. (2013). Community Based Corrections Ninth
edition, University of Texas, San Antonio,
Wadesworth, Cengage Learning
20 Davis Drive Belmont , CA 94002-3098 USA, p. 325, para 5.
Payne, B. K.,
Gainey, R. R., Triplett, R., & Danner, M. J. E. (2003). Justifications for
the probation sanction among residents of virginia-cool or un-cool?*.
Federal Probation, 67(3), 42-48. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/213981149?accountid=34544
Payne, B. K.,
Gainey, R. R., Triplett, R., & Danner, M. J. E. (2003) Table 3. Sample
Demographics
Payne, B. K.,
Gainey, R. R., Triplett, R., & Danner, M. J. E. (2003) Table 4. Recommended
Sanctions
Payne, B. K.,
Gainey, R. R., Triplett, R., & Danner, M. J. E. (2003) Table 5. Sanctions
by Punishment
