Do you agree with the outcome below? Why?

Do you agree with the outcome below? Why? Support your decision.

Jonathan Dough, 32 years old, was convicted by a jury of Aggravated Assault. The trial lasted for 2 days. Dough's defense was that he was too intoxicated to have committed the crime.

Before rendering a sentence, the judge (you) requests a presentence investigation (PSI) be conducted. The PSI reveals the following information:

• Dough has been married for the past 10 years.
• Dough has 2 children: a girl (7) and a boy (3).
• Dough has lived in the same house for the past 12 years.
• Dough has a bachelor's degree and is currently enrolled in an MBA program.
• Dough has had 7 jobs with 7 different employers over the past 10 years. He has never been with the same employer for more than 2 years.
• When he was 24 years old, Dough was convicted of Driving Under the Influence (DUI). His conviction resulted in a first-time, nonviolent offender program that included: 6 months of suspended driving privileges, a $250 fine, Safe Driving School, a substance abuse counseling program, and a 1-year probation. Upon successful completion of the program, his criminal record was to be expunged.
• At 29 years old, Dough was again arrested and convicted of DUI. He was sentenced to 60 days of incarceration (served during 30 weekends), 1 year of suspended driving privileges, a $300 fine, Safe Driving School, a substance abuse counseling program, and a 1-year probation.

With this information, formulate and develop a sentence for Dough that meets 1 or more of the following goals of corrections: rehabilitation, restitution, deterrence, incarceration, or punishment. Explain why your sentence meets the goals of corrections. 

OUTCOME:

I would sentence Dough to ninety days incarceration, a one thousand dollar fine, a manditory substance abuse counseling program and three years probation. I thought the original sentence he received a year ago was fair, and this the second offense should mirror it in a more severe way. This would give him a second chance in changing his behavior (rehabilitate) for his family before a more serious punishment is warranted. This would also allow him to still face a more severe punishment than the first one to try and further deter him from putting himself in the same situation. 

I think that this is a fair punishment and helps put a good emphasis on community corrections. This give the offender another opportunity to change his behavior in a less severe way and limits the cost it puts on the tax payer (Seiter, 2017). Community corrections is getting much more support in todays age then ever before (Applegate, Cullen, Fisher, 1997) and this example makes a great opportunity to capitalize on rehabilitating Dough. I do believe that some people are meant to serve time behind bars but dough is not one of them. He needs to have some degree of a more severe punishment but locking him up does not benefit him, his family or our society as much as another change to change his behavior.

References:

Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., & Fisher, B. S. (1997). Public support for correctional treatment: The continuing appeal of the rehabilitative ideal. The Prison Journal, 77(3), 237-258.

Seiter, R. P. (2017). Corrections: An introduction (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. ISBN: 9780134164113