Justification for the Probation Sanction Among residents of Virginia Cool and Un-cool

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