Constraints on Sentencers? (From Criminal Justice System: A Central Role for the Probation Service, P 38-47, 1989)

• NCJ Number: 121358
• Author(s): D A Thomas
• Date Published: 1989
• Length: 10 pages
• Corporate Author: University of Cambridge
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Issue Overview
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom
• Note: Proceedings of the Clarke Hall Residential Conference held at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, in July 1989.

Annotation

The use of custodial sentences despite pressures to avoid them is discussed.

Abstract

There are two major reasons for custodial sentencing: (1) the offense is seen by the sentencer to demand a custodial sentence on what may be called public policy grounds; and (2) all possible noncustodial sentences have been exhausted and there seems to be no realistic alternative. If the goal is to persuade sentencers to reduce the use of custody, more legislation does not seem to be the answer. Rather than increase the number of sentencing options, more varieties of the same sanction under different names can be created with the accompanying growth of statutory provisions. Those that are redundant should be sorted out, and the legal structure of those that remain should be simplified. The creation of a much simpler system of noncustodial sentences, in which each form of sentence has a distinct role, is the first step. Given a sentencing system which could be organized on logical principles, in place of the present statutory jungle, it would be reasonable to expect the judiciary to begin to grasp more firmly the problem of the proper use of noncustodial sentences, and to identify more clearly the boundary between custodial and noncustodial sanctions.