NCJ Number
57101
Date Published
1977
Length
69 pages
Annotation
THE IMPACT OF CALIFORNIA'S PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCING STATUTE ON THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF PRISON TERMS AND THE SIZE OF THE PRISON POPULATION IS EXAMINED.
Abstract
EFFECTIVE SINCE JULY 1977, THE STATUTE SPECIFIES BASE PENALTY RANGES FOR EACH OFFENSE, CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE BASE TERM CAN BE INCREASED, AND THE AMOUNTS OF SUCH INCREASES. UNDER THE LAW, THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF PRISON TERMS IS LIKELY TO BE SHORTER THAN WAS THE CASE UNDER INDETERMINATE SENTENCING. HOWEVER, IF PRISON ADMISSIONS CONTINUE TO INCREASE AT THE 1970-1976 RATE (THERE ARE REASONS FOR SUSPECTING THAT PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCING MAY PROMOTE INCREASES IN ADMISSIONS), CALIFORNIA'S PRISON POPULATION IS LIKELY TO INCREASE DESPITE THE SHORTER PRISON TERMS UNDER PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCING, AND THE STATE MAY FACE A PRISON OVERCROWDING PROBLEM OF MAJOR DIMENSIONS. OVERCROWDING COULD BE AVERTED IF PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES WERE TO CURTAIL ADMISSIONS, FURTHER REDUCE AVERAGE SENTENCES, OR BOTH. HOWEVER, A LIKELY CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH AN EXERCISE OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL DISCRETION IS THAT THE PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCING LAW WOULD NOT BE APPLIED AS THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED. A SECOND LIKELY CONSEQUENCE IS THAT DISPARITY IN SENTENCING WOULD BE AGGRAVATED. THUS, IN THE PROCESS OF AVERTING OVERCROWDING, THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM MAY PLACE IN JEOPARDY THE INTENT OF THE PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCING LAW AND MAY FORFEIT A KEY GOAL OF PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCING: REDUCING SENTENCING DISPARITY. CALIFORNIA SHOULD GIVE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO AUTHORIZING A NONLEGISLATIVE AGENCY TO PROMULGATE SENTENCING GUIDELINES AND PENALTY LEVELS. ALTHOUGH THIS APPROACH IS NOT WITHOUT PROBLEMS, IT WOULD OFFER FLEXIBILITY IN HANDLING PERIODIC OVERCROWDING PROBLEMS AND IN ADJUSTING PENALTY STRUCTURES. METHODS OF ANALYSIS ARE EXPLAINED IN DETAIL. SUPPORTING DATA ARE INCLUDED.