Are Judges Properly Trained to Sentence Criminal Offenders?

 While I walked and talked recently with another prisoner, he told me that he thought judges were not qualified to sentence people to prison. At first, I was a bit astonished at his claim, but in further discussion, he actually touched on an important point. 

Sentencing, itself, is a matter for the judiciary. Prosecutors and judges are tasked with upholding and carrying out the law (regardless of how well or poorly we might think they do their jobs). The legislature enacts the laws, and the judiciary enforces them. It's fairly straightforward. 

Taken strictly from this perspective, then, judges are not only qualified by their training, but it is their constitutional duty to enforce the law, including sentencing offenders for their crimes. The legislature, largely, defines both crimes and punishments, and judges are simply fulfilling their role in the process. 

What my friend was getting to, though, was that judges, and in some respects the legislature who passes laws, are not trained to consider prison's purpose of rehabilitation. They are not social workers or psychologists, and they do not necessarily understand the motivations behind someone's criminal actions. 

After more than fourteen years in prison, I have come to understand that there is a spectrum of what motivates people to commit crimes. Every day I encounter men who are committed criminals. All they can think about is how they are going to get away with their next crime (even in prison!). But I also encounter people, a greater number, who simply lack impulse control. Their addiction controls them, and they commit crimes to fund it. Or, they have an anger problem they can't control, so they lash out violently. 

A host of other motivations lead to crime, but the legislature rarely factors motivation into sentencing schemes. Judges sometimes have a little leeway within the sentencing statutes to consider factors like social influences and addiction. Yet, they aren't trained in either psychology or social work to critically evaluate an offender's true motivation. 

If society's only motivation for prison is for punishment, then statutes that strictly define sentence lengths for particular crimes would make complete sense. And punishment is an important aspect of prison. However, if society also intends to rehabilitate or reform prisoners, which at least appears to have some support among citizens, then something ought to change. 

At the very least, the legislature and judges ought to be properly trained to understand what the judiciary calls "mitigating circumstances." These are things like social influences, lack of impulse control, addiction, and the like. Then, the judiciary ought to have more flexibility to consider these circumstances and to fashion sentences that address these circumstances, in addition to punishing the crime. 

Of course, we'll never get it just right, and some maverick judges will use their flexible powers unjustly, but we ought to at least strive for a more just approach to sentencing and punishment. We'll also have to set more of a priority on the rehabilitative aspect of sentences, more than simply checking a box. We actually have to care as a society about helping prisoners change the causes of their criminal behavior. 

It's a tall task, I know. That's probably why politicians continue to make a show of supporting real reforms without actually doing anything. It's politically dangerous to make quantum shifts in penal philosophy. Instead, the status quo, which vacillates with finicky public sentiment, is a safer bet. 

But like we say in an addiction group I help facilitate: If you keep doing what you've been doing, you're going to keep getting what you've been getting.