Wouldn't longer sentences mean less overall crime?
Sentence length may or may not correlate with a decrease in crime. Criminal punishment has four basic goals: rehabilitate the offender; restrain the offender from committing further crimes; exact revenge against the offender; and deterring the offender and the general public from criminal behavior. It is unclear if longer sentences actually convince a particular offender not to commit another crime. Recidivism rates are high, thereby suggesting that the average offender does not "learn his lesson" in prison and refrain from further criminal activity. One thing that does correlate positively with a reduction in criminal activity is increasing age; people under age thirty-five years commit most crimes. Therefore, it could argued that sentences that keep offenders in prison until middle age will reduce overall crime rates.
In addition, more time in prison could allow for more complete rehabilitation because the offender could stay in treatment programs for a longer period of time. Batterers are more likely to change the controlling behavior that leads to domestic abuse if they participate in long-term intensive educational programs. Sex offenders may benefit from multi-level treatment plans spread out over a period of time. In prisons with educational programs, offenders who stay long enough may receive high school or college degrees, or learn a trade, which will equip them to lead a law-abiding life. However, some states do not provide adequate resources for these rehabilitation programs.
Longer sentences do not appear to deter the general public from criminal activity. Many times, it is the perception of the likelihood of getting caught that deters a person from criminal activity, not the length of the sentence. Many crimes are committed on impulse, and the threat of a lengthy sentence does not even enter the offender's mind.
Finally, the cost of longer sentences in terms of tax dollars is very high. New prisons and jails must be built to accommodate all of the offenders who must be incarcerated under sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences.
Back to Top
Is there a way to punish a criminal before he actually commits the crime he is planning?
In some circumstances a "crime" can be punished before it occurs. Many jurisdictions have either a general "attempt" crime or individual statutes that make attempted murder or attempted robbery or the like crime. The purpose of these statutes is to punish an individual who has shown himself to be dangerously inclined to commit a crime without waiting until the criminal act is actually completed. In order to convict a person for an attempted crime, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person had the intent to do an act or bring about certain consequences that would amount to a crime, and that he took some step beyond mere preparation towards that goal.
Whether the offender has the intent necessary to be convicted of attempt depends on the mental state required by the underlying crime. If a person's actual intention at the time he or she attacked the victim was to cause bodily harm, he or she cannot be convicted of attempted murder if the victim does not die. (However, he could be convicted of the actual crime of murder if the victim died, even if his intention was only to cause bodily harm.) Likewise, a person whose plan to steal fails, can be convicted of attempted theft, which requires the intention to deprive another of his property permanently, only if he or she had the same intention at the time the crime was attempted.
Like most crimes, attempt requires a "bad act" as well as a bad intention. Therefore, the government must prove the offender engaged in conduct that tended to affect the crime. The exact nature of the act needed to meet this "preparation" requirement varies from case to case, depending on individual facts. For example, a person who checked in at the ticket counter of an airport and sat in the waiting area with a gun in his pocket was convicted of the crime of attempting to board an airplane with a gun. A person who planned to rob a bank messenger and drove around looking for him on his regular route, but did not find him, was not guilty of attempted robbery.
The punishment for the crime of attempt can be the same as the punishment for the completed crime. However, most jurisdictions make some distinction and provide for a lesser punishment for attempt. For instance, some states provide that the punishment for attempted first-degree theft will be the same as the crime of second-degree theft. The Model Penal Code, which is a source of many states' criminal statutes, generally requires the same punishment for attempt as the punishment for the underlying crime on the rationale that a person who attempts a crime has shown himself to be just as much in need of corrective sanctions as the one who actually completes a crime.
Back to Top
Are all illegal drugs treated equally when it comes to punishing drug dealers?
No, the punishment for drug crimes depends not only on the criminal conduct of the offender but also on the classification of the drug. Federal sentencing guidelines begin with forty-three base offense levels and add or subtract a few levels depending on certain specified criteria. The higher the offense level, the harsher the sentence.
The base offense level under the federal guidelines differs for different drugs and for different amounts of the same drug. For instance, if the conviction is for the crime of manufacturing 300 kilograms of heroin, the base offense level is forty-two. However if the conviction is for manufacturing 300 kilograms of cocaine, the base offense level is thirty-eight. Crack is a form of cocaine and listed on the same schedule of controlled substances. However, the quantities of crack needed to impose a certain sentence are much less than the quantity of powdered cocaine. A person convicted of the crime of delivering 5 grams of crack will receive a sentence in the federal system of five to forty years. To receive that same sentence, a person would have to be convicted of delivering 500 grams of powdered cocaine.
Back to Top
Can a person be guilty of drunk driving if he only had one drink?
The crime of drunk driving is generally defined in two ways: (1) having a blood alcohol content above the limit set by law, or (2) driving under the influence of alcohol. To find a person guilty under the first definition, a jury (or judge) must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person's blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeded a certain amount. In most states the legal limit is .08 percent. Therefore, if it is proved that the person's BAC at the time of the incident was .08 percent or greater, he or she can be convicted of drunk driving, regardless of how much alcohol was actually consumed. As a practical matter, one drink would almost certainly not lead to a BAC of .08 percent or greater; generally, a person needs to have five drinks in an hour to develop a BAC of .08 percent. However, if there was something unique about the person or the drink, or other circumstance, one drink could raise the BAC above the legal limit.
In contrast, the second definition does not refer to any particular BAC. It focuses on the driving behavior of the person; if it is impaired by the person's consumption of alcohol, he or she can be found guilty of drunk driving. Instead of presenting evidence of the BAC to a jury, the prosecution seeking a conviction under this definition generally presents testimony about the person's driving and consumption of alcohol. A police officer will often describe the impaired driving that lead him to pull the person over and the person's ability (or lack thereof) to perform field sobriety tests, such as walking a straight line. Evidence is also usually presented concerning the person's consumption of alcohol and if the jury then concludes that the prosecution has met its burden of proof, it will convict the person of drunk driving. A susceptible person may exhibit impaired driving after one drink and therefore be convicted of drunk driving.
Back to Top
What is the role of the federal government in criminal law?
Ordinary crime has long been considered to be the concern of state government. States are authorized to protect their citizens from criminal activity by prosecution of common law and legislatively created crimes. The federal government, on the other hand, has a limited jurisdiction and must link any crimes it prosecutes to its powers under the Constitution. The most commonly used powers to support federal criminal legislation are the commerce power, the taxing power, and the postal power. While Congress has used these powers all along to define crimes, there has been an explosion of federally created crimes in the last half of the 20th century. Most of the laws controlling white-collar crime, like the RICO Act and the Victims and Witnesses Protection Act have been passed since 1950. In addition, Congress has become increasingly involved in the "war on drugs" with the creation of various drug statutes. Due to the severity of the penalties, many local prosecutors prefer to have drug charges prosecuted in federal court rather than file state charges. Most federal laws have as their rationale that the particular crime addressed needs a uniform response from the whole country or that it would be impossible to prosecute on a state-by-state basis. Federal gun laws provide uniformity, and federal computer laws make it possible to punish Internet crime.
The federal Constitution has always played a role in criminal law because it defines important individual rights that must be preserved even in a state prosecution of a state crime. The right to a trial by jury in open court, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the right to remain silent, the presumption of innocence, the right to be represented by a lawyer, and the right to be free of cruel or unusual punishment, are part of every state legal system in part because they are guaranteed by the Constitution. States are required to pay for attorneys for indigent offenders, and federal judges provide oversight to state prisons because of these constitutional requirements.
Back to Top
Are grand jury proceedings secret?
Most courts have rules that prohibit disclosure of grand jury proceedings. The rules typically apply to the government attorneys, the grand jury members, and the court personnel. Violators of the rules can be held in contempt of court if a case against them is proved. It is often times very difficult to do so because of the problems with proving the leaked information came out of the grand jury proceeding itself and identifying exactly who made the prohibited disclosure.
Another problem in keeping the proceedings secret arises because the prohibition against disclosure often does not apply to a person subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. Witnesses are free to discuss their testimony with the media or with anyone else, unless the judge expressly orders them not to.
Persons who are the subject of a grand jury proceeding are not entitled to any notice regarding the scope of the investigation or the nature of the incidents under consideration. They are generally not allowed to have an attorney present with them in the grand jury room, but may be permitted to leave from time to time to consult with an attorney outside the grand jury room.
Back to Top
Are there special crimes to control children's behavior?
While there is a special court system to handle juvenile crime, there is usually not a special juvenile criminal code. Adult criminal codes are applied in the juvenile system, but the children are not generally accused of crimes. Instead, they are accused of committing delinquent acts. Sentences are designed to educate and rehabilitate children, rather than punish them. Children cannot be locked up in adult jails except for very limited periods of time. A child held in an adult jail must be out of sight and sound contact with the adult inmates.
In earlier days, special crimes that only applied to children did exist. These crimes were the so-called status offenses and punished behavior that would not be criminal if committed by an adult. Status offenses included running away from home, skipping school, disobeying parents, and breaking curfew. The federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act made receipt of federal funds conditioned on eliminating status offenses, and most states have done so. However | 
