NCJ Number
84478
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 73 Issue: 2 Dated: (Summer 1982) Pages: 769-785
Date Published
1982
Length
17 pages
Annotation
This article discusses which kinds of legal threats deter crime most while impairing justice least; ways of determining what crime rate reduction the community is willing to pay for in terms of costs and benefits are described.
Abstract
The criminal law assumes that deterrence is effective in preventing criminal activity even though rehabilitation may not be. Deterrence is found not to require conscious calculation by prospective offenders and to be maximized by mandated, determinate, and flat sentences. Mandated sentences, as well as determinate and flat sentences, may be less unjust to individual offenders than are judicial and parole discretion. In addition, future victims are insufficiently considered by judicial and parole discretionary practices. Rehabilitation must be rejected as a major function of sentencing, primarily because judges cannot determine what the chances for rehabilitation of a particular offender may be except through subjective evaluation of prior history. Courts should not be allowed to circumvent mandated sentences, although they should be allowed to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The deterrence theory, in contrast to the retributionist theory, offers a nonarbitrary way of determining correct sentences for every crime. The article provides 33 footnotes. (Author summary modified).