edit my paper – International and comparative prosecution…

mannyzzzzz5678 edit my paper – International and comparative prosecution…edit my paper – International and comparative prosecution sentencing refers to the study and analysis of how criminal acts are prosecuted and how the harshness of sentences differs between nations.The severity of sentencing can range from receiving the death penalty under a drug trafficking conviction whereas in other countries the maximum sentencing is ten years. Majority of the studies are conducted on diverse international prosecution and sentencing procedures in order to comprehend the various procedures, compare legal systems, and understand the criminal justice system in other nations. This article will look at international prosecution and sentencing by contrasting two countries with very distinct trial and sentencing procedures. A comparison of sentencing laws in the United States and Scandinavian countries (Norway) reveals significant differences in criminal justice approaches, highlighting fundamental differences in punitive versus rehabilitative philosophies, criteria for sentencing, and their impacts on recidivism rates and social stability. The essay will argue that using a less harsh manner in punishing criminal actions provides a more effective and compassionate approach that decreases recidivism and provides a general benefit to society. Firstly, looking at Norwegian sentencing policies, it is understood that Norway has a restorative justice approach. Restorative justice takes the approach of serving justice by offenders taking full accountability for their criminal acts and allowing them to seek a change in their behaviour as they understand the negative impacts of their actions on their community and surroundings. This allows them to redeem themselves within the community and with authorities- further discouraging them from reoffending. Restorative justice has many methods; family group conferences, victim impact panels, victim-offender mediation, etc. Restorative justice allows the offender to reintegrate back into society swiftly (OJJDP, 2010). The sentencing policies found within the Norwegian countries have led to low recidivism rates, as they incorporate rehabilitation and or reintegration programs for offenders instead of punishment. Norway’s prison has been known for its humane conditions of prisons. Prisons in Norway are built to reintegrate the offenders back into society. Focusing on educating the offender in their criminal act, helping address thier criminal behaviour through counselling/therapy. Even if sentenced to prison in Norway whether it be for a minor or major criminal offence, the offender’s human rights are not taken away- access to health care, right to vote, protection and proper living conditions. Reintegration for an offender is prioritized in Norway as they have many programs including community volunteering in places that teach skills that are useful in the workplace, school facilities and the societal world. Secondly looking at the United States of America’s sentencing policy has a punitive approach to sentencing, including mandated minimum penalties for a variety of offences. This has resulted in a high percentage of imprisonment, particularly for nonviolent offences. Sentences can differ greatly based on state and federal jurisdiction. America has gone through many different sentencing policy periods; indeterminate sentencing (1950-1975), sentencing reform (1975-1984), tough on crime (1984-1996) and equilibrium (1996-2015). America’s sentencing policy was always in favour of rehabilitation and reintegration approaches when discussing sentencing the offender. But as time progressed so did the sentencing policies and quite quickly sentencing disparities were common, and the risk of racial bias and arbitrariness was at an all-time high (Tonry, 2013). Criticisms from Legal Academics Davis, Dershowitz, etc, pointed out the flawed legal system’s procedural fairness, transparency and predictability. Focusing on America’s switch from trying to achieve a restorative justice approach to sentencing policy but the further research was done, and sentencing policy changing through states becoming more harsher. Researchers Kassebuan, Ward, etc., argued that the American rehabilitation approach to sentencing policy was not keeping up with its promise as incarceration rates were increasing, recidivism rates further researchers Morris, Hirsch, etc argued the parole release procedures were unfair and decisions regarding to sentencing were inconsistent. America’s sentching policy switched from moderate sentencing policy to harsher ones, for example, states starting to enforce mandatory minimum sentence required for repeat offenders ranging from adding five, ten or 20+ year on the prison sentencing (Tonry, 2013). In the United States, the Federal Sentencing Commission (USSC) “establish sentencing policies and practices for the Federal criminal justice system that . . . reflect, to the extent practicable, advancement in knowledge of human behaviour as it relates to the criminal justice process” (28 U.S.C. 991(b)(1)(C)).  In America, federal law imposes mandatory minimum sentences for specific crimes, curtailing judges’ discretion, even in cases with mitigating circumstances. Additionally, ‘three strikes’ laws in some states and at the federal level mandate harsh sentences, often life imprisonment, for individuals convicted of a third serious felony. While judges have some latitude to deviate from these guidelines when compelling reasons exist, this can lead to departures and variances in sentencing outcomes. Certain factors, like firearm use or involvement in organized crime, can trigger sentencing enhancements, extending prison terms. It’s crucial to note that state-level sentencing policies vary significantly, with each state determining its own guidelines, mandatory minimums, and approaches to handling state-level crimes. Above I briefly discussed the sentencing policies in Norway and The United States of America. After briefly discussing the sentencing policies between the two countries, the Norwegian sentence is more minor than that of the United States. Prison sentences are usually short, and offenders are encouraged to pursue education and vocational training. The notion of rehabilitation is highly valued in Norway. The United States has a punitive approach to sentencing, including mandated minimum penalties for a variety of offences. This has resulted in a high percentage of imprisonment, particularly for nonviolent offences. Sentences can differ greatly based on state and federal jurisdiction. The outlying differences between the two countries’ sentencing policies are seen through sentencing lengths, recidivism rates and prison conditions. Norway’s sentencing policies implementation and the route of restorative justice show in data how it is a better approach than the punitive approach America has. In Norway’s population of 5.5, the incarceration rate sits at 53 per 100,000. When compared to America the population is 331.9 and the incarceration rate is 531 per 100,000 (BJS, 2021).  Further looking at the recidivism rate in Norway is about 20% within 2 years of being released, compared to America’s recidivism rate sitting at 44% after their 1 year out. Prison conditions in Norway according to researchers Halden is a maximum-security prison in Norway set on 75 acres of land where offenders live in empathetic and comfortable conditions. These comfortable conditions include having no barricades, free access on the grounds, interaction with others, and access to entertainment, education, and work opportunities (Kolind et al., 2014). While prison conditions in the United States are known for their harshness, a significant number of inmates endure overcrowded, violent, and brutal detention facilities that lack access to therapy, education, or rehabilitation services. Those in need of medical attention, assistance for managing disabilities, mental health and addiction treatment, as well as suicide prevention, are often denied the care they require, neglected, reprimanded, and placed in solitary confinement.(EJI, 2018). To further understand the different policy sentencing in Norway and America, researcher indicate that there is “no evidence that harsher confinement conditions reduce recidivism rather…our estimates suggest that moving an inmate over a cutoff that increases his…likelihood of rearrest” (Chen and Shapiro, 2007). Given the extensive research and data comparing sentencing policies in Norway and the United States, it is clear that Norway practices restorative justice within its criminal justice system, which appears to be a more effective approach when compared to the punitive approach to sentencing procedures in the United States. These disparities in sentencing policies highlight the variations in punitive vs. rehabilitative ideologies, sentencing criteria, and their relative consequences on recidivism rates and community cohesiveness. The evidence substantially supports the claim that restorative justice and more lenient sentencing systems are preferable.In this section, I will discuss the present difficulties I am having while writing my thesis, which is about the differing sentencing systems of Norway and the United States of America. To begin, studying Norway’s sentencing policy was rather simple; nevertheless, I had trouble discovering considerable research resources or government websites that clearly define their sentencing regulations. Second, I have accumulated an extensive amount of research on America’s sentencing rules and historical backdrop, which has made it difficult to arrange my paper efficiently. Given the quantity of accessible material, my paper now seems chaotic, and I am struggling to condense my thoughts and identify how best to convey the contrasts and what precise elements to compare. Third, when referencing Norway, I am faced with the issue of locating reputable statistics. The United States, on the other hand, provides a variety of easily accessible information on sentencing policies and their effects on recidivism, prison conditions, and sentence durations. Plans moving ahead, is locating way more time for writing my paper as im struggling to keep up due to personal reasonings, I want to achieve a university level argumentative paper on a topic i find interesting especially choosing two countries which are drastically different in the criminal justice system and the implentation of sentencing policing. Arts & HumanitiesEnglish