If at the end of the criminal trial, a defendant is found guilty by a judge or jury, their punishment will be determined by the court. Usually, the maximum penalties of the federal or state criminal statutes are set based on the offense classification. As you probably can guess, felonies have the most serious possible punishments.
There are a few discretions of the judges with regard to sentencing. On the day of a sentencing hearing, both prosecutors and defendants are given the chance to present evidence that can be considered by the court.
During the sentencing hearing, the defense may put on evidence of mitigating factors. What are the mitigating factors? The mitigating factors refer to the kinds of factors that would support leniency in sentencing. Apparently, these factors that might mitigate the punishment of the defendant usually receive less attention from the criminal statutes. However, courts have held that evidence relating to the character of the defendant may be introduced provided that it is relevant to the sentencing process. Please check out Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978). Some of the most common mitigating factors include:
- Lack of a prior criminal record;
- Minor role in the offense;
- Culpability of the victim;
- Youth or age, where it affects the responsibility of the individual defendant;
- Want to cooperation with authorities;
- A greater degree of provocation than normally expected;
- Admissions to police in interview;
- Past circumstances, including abuse that resulted in criminal activity;
- Every circumstance at the time of the offense. These include provocation, stress, or emotional problems that might not excuse the crime but might offer an explanation;
- Mental or physical illness; and
- Genuine remorse.
Not only the mitigating factors, there are also some aggravating factors. While the mitigating factors can minimize the sentence of the defendant, the aggravating ones can make it worse. The evidence of aggravating factors can be offered by the prosecutors if they want for the defendant to get a harsh sentence during trial. Usually, these specific factors are identified by the criminal statutes and should result in harsher punishments. These aggravating factors include:
- Repeat offenses: It is possible for the court to impose a harsher penalty on a defendant who has more than one prior convictions. In the state with the three strikes law, such as California, the one who commits a relatively minor offense can get a lengthy jail or prison term if they have two or more prior convictions.
- Vulnerability of victim: In a few jurisdictions, it is possible for the court to impose a harsher sentence if the victim is found to be vulnerable. It does not matter if it is either according to an objective standard or in relation to the defendant. It is possible for the vulnerability based on age, including a crime of violence against a child or a fraudulent scheme targeting the elderly, to be included in the aggravating factor. In addition, the other factors that can be included include physical or mental disability, illness or injury, and incapacitation.
- Leadership role: Courts are allowed by some jurisdictions to consider leadership role as an aggravating factor if the defendant played a prominent role in a criminal scheme, such as a leadership or managerial role. It surely can be used especially if the defendant influenced or controlled the others who are involved in the offense.
- Hate crimes: The laws that allow sentencing enhancements if the state proves that the defendant was motivated by bias or animus based on a group characteristic have been applied in some states. Usually, hate crime statutes include some categories such as religion, race, and national origin. As for some states, they also include some categories such as sexual orientation and gender identify.
- Mandatory minimum sentencing: In some cases of offenses, it is possible for the circumstances of the case to trigger laws that remove the discretion of the court to adjust a sentence downward. Apparently, the mandatory minimum sentencing laws are still common for a lot of offenses that are related to drug. For instance, the penalties for offense that involve crack cocaine used to vary widely compared to the penalties for the offenses that involve cocaine in powder form. It is due to mandatory minimum laws targeting crack. While the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 sought to eliminate the disparity, the other laws still have a similar effect.
- Offence committed whilst on bail for other offences;
- Failure to respond to previous sentences;
- Offence was racially or religiously aggravated;
- Planning of an offence;
- An intention to commit more serious harm than actually resulted from the offence;
- Offenders operating in groups or gangs;
- ‘Professional’ offending;
- Commission of the offence for financial gain (where this is not inherent in the offence itself);
- High level of profit from the offence;
- An attempt to conceal or dispose of evidence;
- Failure to respond to warnings or concerns expressed by others about the offender’s behaviour;
- Offence committed whilst on licence;
- Offence motivated by hostility towards a minority group, or a member or members of it;
- Commission of an offence while under the influence of alcohol or drugs;
- Use of a weapon to frighten or injure victim;
- Deliberate and gratuitous violence or damage to property, over and above what is needed to carry out the offence;
- Abuse of power;
- Abuse of a position of trust
- Multiple victims;
- An especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended;
- A sustained assault or repeated assaults on the same victim;
- Location of the offence. For instance, in an isolated place;
- Offence is committed against the one who is working in the public sector or providing a service to the public;
- Presence of the others, such as relatives, especially children or partner of the victim;
- Additional degradation of the victim (for example, taking photographs of a victim as part of a sexual offence);
- In property offences, high value (which includes sentimental value) of property to the victim, or substantial consequential loss (for instance, where the theft of equipment causes serious disruption to a victim’s life or business).
A bookworm and researcher especially related to law and citizenship education. I spend time every day in front of the internet and the campus library.
