Achieving Accountability in Sentencing (From Accountability for Criminal Justice: Selected Essays, P 376-396, 1995, Philip C Stenning, ed. -- See NCJ 166936)

• NCJ Number: 166949
• Author(s): A N Doob; J P Brodeur
• Date Published: 1995
• Length: 21 pages
• Sale Source: University of Toronto Press
• Publication Type: Issue Overview
• Language: English
• Country: Canada

Annotation

This essay examines the relationship between sentencing disparity and accountability and identifies factors that are important in developing sentencing accountability in Canada.

Abstract

The concepts of sentencing disparity (disparate sentences for similar cases) and accountability are intimately related. Organizations and individuals are "accountable" when there is a "shared set of expectations" and "common currency of justifications" for policy, decisions, or actions. The authors argue that the major cause of sentencing disparity and general public discontent about sentencing is that there is no set of principles to guide the development of sentencing policy and practice. Efforts to deal with disparity without first addressing the issue of policy will not be doomed to complete failure, but they will be severely limited in their effectiveness and ultimately will never be able to provide an adequate foundation for defining, understanding, and eliminating unwarranted disparity in sentencing. Accountability in sentencing, however, cannot be promoted only by developing a set of sentencing principles based upon sentencing theory. The application of theory and principles is dependent on a political will to reform the sentencing process.