The Sentence

Many factors are taken into consideration by judges before a sentence is handed down to a convicted criminal and these factors are presented before a judge or magistrate in the form of a pre-sentence report. The pre-sentence report contains information concerning educational background, financial status, criminal history, and other such criteria. Other important factors that contribute to the complexity of sentencing an offender are proportionality, equity, social debt, severity or level of the crime, acceptance of responsibility by the offender, and the offender's role in the crime. In the following essay factors considered by a judge in the imposing of a sentence for the crime of identity theft for monetary gain will be discussed as well as how sentencing goals would be incorporated in the sentence.

Identity theft is a growing problem in the United States in which "the illegal use of someone else's personal information in order to obtain money or credit" (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2008, ¶1).When sentencing a person for identity theft for monetary gain the judge or magistrate must take into consideration all the information within the pre-sentence report and supply the prosecution team and defense team with a copy of this document before the court date set for sentencing. The pre-sentence report will contain information about the offender's family, relationship, educational, employment, financial, health, criminal backgrounds as well as information about relationships held by the offender, and substance use or abuse (The Department of Justice, 2007). A judge and or magistrate will take other information into consideration before a sentence is rendered. That information could include proportionality, equity, social debt, severity or level of the crime, acceptance of responsibility by the offender, and the offender's role in the crime.

Proportionality is one of the main factors that express the need for punishments to fit the crime. In other words, if the crime is violent or severe the punishment should also be severe (Crimetheory.com, 1998). Equity and social debt are two other factors that a judge will take into consideration before imposing a sentence. These two factors suggest that criminals should be treated the same with respect to the punishment administered for similar crimes and the criminal history of the offender should be taken into consideration when determining a sentence (Mays, L.G.L. & Winfree, T. Jr., 2002). Criminal history is another factor that affects the level of severity, discussed in the next paragraph, of the criminal act committed by the offender (Part A-Criminal History, 2008).

Severity of the crime, acceptance of responsibility for acts committed, and the role of the offender during the criminal act are other factors that explored when determining a sentence for law violations. Crimes are categorized into levels and the United States Sentencing Commission "...provide 43 levels of offense seriousness- the more serious the crime, the higher the offense level" (An Overview of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 2008). The higher the level of offense seriousness the more severe the punishment will be. When a criminal accepts responsibility for the criminal act that he or she has committed the sentence can be lowered by two to three levels in some cases. The role of the offender in the criminal act is another factor that considered when determining an appropriate punishment for acts committed. If the offender has been found to be the leading participant or organizer of the criminal act the level of severity can increase two to four levels (Part B- Role in the Offense, 2008).

Sentencing goals are also taken into consideration when determining the length or severity of punishment that a convicted person will face. The five sentencing goals are Retribution, Incapacitation, Deterrence, Rehabilitation, and Restitution. In the case of an individual convicted of identity theft for monetary gain the sentencing goals could be used in the following ways:

1. Retribution- The offender should be sentenced to a minimum of two and no more than five years (in prison) for a first offense and a maximum of 20 years (in prison) for additional offenses without the option to be released early.

2. Incapacitation- Incarcerating an individual will prevent the offender from obtaining and using others personal or financial information for his or her gain.

3. Deterrence- Incarcerating an offender for identity theft crimes will prevent the individual from committing further identity theft crimes and serve as an example to other would be criminals.

4. Rehabilitation- After release from prison the offender should be placed on parole with strict guidelines that restrict the individual from being in a situation that might make it easy for the individual to commit identity theft in the future and regular check-up with a parole officer to monitor the parolee's progress.

5. Restitution- The offender should be required to repay, to the victim, monetary damages accumulated by the offender's use of stolen identity and payment of charges to restore any damages done by the criminal act by the offender.

To summarize, a judge or magistrate has to take many factors into consideration when determining the appropriate sentence for criminal actions. The pre-sentence report, proportionality, equity, social debt, severity or level of the crime, acceptance of responsibility by the offender, and the offender's role in the crime are all explored to conclude which sentence and or sentencing goal(s) meet the severity of the criminal act that was committed. Differing levels of severity for criminal acts can allow sentences to be lengthened and lowered according to the United States Sentencing Commission's Sentencing Guidelines Manual specifications. Finally sentencing goals can be applied in the case of identity theft for monetary gain to hold offenders responsible for criminal acts, punish, deter, rehabilitate, and make offenders financially obligated to make right the damages resulting from the crime(s) he or she committed.

Reference

Crimetheory.com (1998) The Proportionality of Punishment in Beccaria's On Crimes and Punishments. Retrieved November 18, 2008 from, web site: http://www.crimetheory.com/ClasPos/proportion.htm

Mays, L.G.L. & Winfree, T. Jr. (2002) Week 1 reading material. Contemporary Corrections (2): Sentencing and Criminal Sanctions. Chap. 3. Retrieved November 18, 2008 from, University of Phoenix, rEsource, CJA383-Institutional and Community Corrections Web site.

Merriam-Webster, Incorporated (2008) identity theft. Retrieved November 22, 2008 from, web site: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identity+theft

The Department of Justice (2007) Pre-sentence report. Retrieved November 22, 2008 from, web site: http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/communitycorrections/probation_order/pre_sentence_report

United States Department of Justice (Nov. 2008) Identity Theft and Identity Fraud. Retrieved November 22, 2008 from, web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fraud/websites/idtheft.html

United States Sentencing Commission (Nov. 2008) An Overview of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Retrieved November 22, 2008 from, web site: http://www.ussc.gov/TRAINING/GLOverview04.pdf

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, §3E1.1 (Nov. 2008) Part A-Criminal History, Chap. 4, p. 368-383. Retrieved November 22, 2008 from, web site: http://www.ussc.gov/2007guid/4a1_1.html

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, §3E1.1 (Nov. 2008) Part B- Basic Economic Offenses, Chap. 2, p. 80-106. Retrieved November 22, 2008 from, web site: http://www.ussc.gov/2007guid/2b1_6.html

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, §3E1.1 (Nov. 2008) Part B- Role in the Offense, Chap. 3, p. 340-346. Retrieved November 22, 2008 from, web site: http://www.ussc.gov/2007guid/3b1_1.html

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, §3E1.1 (Nov. 2008) Part E- Acceptance of Responsibility, Chap. 3, p. 365-367. Retrieved November 22, 2008 from, web site: http://www.ussc.gov/2007guid/3e1_1.html