NCJ Number
79045
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 45 Issue: 2 Dated: (June 1981) Pages: 15-18
Date Published
1981
Length
4 pages
Annotation
The interaction of judicial and parole decisionmaking affecting sentences is examined, and alternative approaches for judicial sentencing are assessed.
Abstract
For the sentencing judge, changes in prison and parole policies have important implications. Concerning parole, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the sentencing judge has 'no enforceable expectations' about the release date. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that judges do not render sentences without having some (nonenforceable) expectations about their implementation. The problem is how these expectations should influence the judge's decisions. At one extreme, the sentencing judge might decide to defer to the parole commission routinely. In cases in which the judge decided that imprisonment was appropriate, he/she would render the maximum sentence provided by law and impose it under 18 U.S.C. 4205(b)(2) so that parole eligibility would be immediate, effectively leaving the parole commission to determine the sentence length. At the other extreme would be a policy of tailoring sentences to the parole commission guidelines. The judge would decide the appropriate time to be served in each case and then frame the sentence with the intention of achieving the desired outcome. The preferred middle course would be for the judge to put a ceiling on the time to be served. In practice, this approach would allow the offender to serve the shorter of the time the judge considers appropriate and the time the parole commission considers appropriate.