There are a few objectives that every sentence given to criminals has to be able to meet. These objectives of sentencing which may be explained well by a Los Angeles criminal attorney are the punishment to be given to the guilty person, the criminal’s deterrence in terms of offending again, and procedures for the criminal to reform or rehabilitate.

All judges must see to it that there is a balance among the above-mentioned sentencing objectives. One example may be the fact that the more lenient the process of sentencing is, the greater the focus on reform. On the other hand, the greater the weight of the sentence, the more it is geared towards the deterrence of the guilty party.

One can say that the process of sentencing may not really be seen as exact or precise.

There is really no assurance that the sentencing process in a specific case is really the most appropriate one. What is more important, however, is that the sentence that was imposed is able to meet the objectives and rules found in The Sentencing Act.

Judge A may come up with a different sentencing result as compared to Judge B. The difference does not mean though that the sentence given is erroneous. For as long as sentencing is done within the stated ranges, people do not have to view the result as a mistake.