DETERMINATE SENTENCING - THE HISTORY, THE THEORY, THE DEBATE

• NCJ Number: 43227
• Journal: Corrections Magazine Volume: 3 Issue: 3 Dated: (SEPTEMBER 1977) Pages: 3-13
• Author(s): M S SERRILL
• Date Published: 1977
• Length: 11 pages
• Corporate Author: Correctional Information Service, Inc
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES THE ABUSES OF DISCRETION IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THE MOVEMENT TO CONTROL ITS PRACTICE. PROPOSALS FOR REFORM AND PROBLEMS OF IMPLEMENTATION ARE PRESENTED.

Abstract

THE 'DETERMINATE SENTENCING' MOVEMENT WOULD ABOLISH OR TIGHTLY CONTROL DISCRETION AS PRACTICED BY PROSECUTORS IN CHOOSING CHARGES OR PLEA BARGAINING, BY JUDGES IN SENTENCING, BY PRISON ADMINISTRATORS IN DECIDING PRISONER TREATMENT METHODS, AND BY PAROLE BOARDS IN RELEASING OR NOT RELEASING PRISONERS. CLEAR, UNIFORM PENALTIES FOR ALL CRIMES, PRESCRIBED EITHER THROUGH LEGISLATION OR GUIDELINES, WOULD BE ADOPTED. A HISTORY OF DISCRETION IN SENTENCING AND RECENT EXAMPLES OF SENTENCING DISPARITY SHOW THAT DISCRETION HAS OFTEN BEEN ABUSED. SINCE THE 1971 PUBLICATION OF A BOOK DETAILING A HAPHAZARD SENTENCING AND PAROLE SITUATION IN CALIFORNIA STATE PRISONS, DETERMINATE SENTENCING HAS BEEN A CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMUNITY. SENTENCING REFORMS CITED ADVOCATE GOALS SUCH AS PUNISHMENT OF THE OFFENDER AND HUMANIZATION OF CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS, WHICH WOULD BE ACHIEVED THROUGH 'PRESUMPTIVE' SENTENCING (A PARTICULAR SENTENCE FOR A PARTICULAR CRIME) GRADED ACCORDING TO THE SEVERITY OF THE OFFENSE, OR THROUGH THE ABOLITION OF PAROLE BOARDS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF 'FLAT TIME' SENTENCES (A SINGLE SENTENCE FOR EACH CLASS OF FELONIES). ALTHOUGH MOST MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMIC, PRISON REFORM, OR LIBERAL POLITICAL COMMUNITY FAVOR A REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF DISCRETION CURRENTLY EXERCISED, SPECIFIC PROPOSALS FOR DETERMINATE SENTENCING GIVE RISE TO DEBATE OVER THEIR IMPLEMENTATION. ONE CENTRAL QUESTION INVOLVES WHICH OFFENDERS SHOULD GO TO PRISON AND WHICH SHOULD NOT. THERE IS COMMON AGREEMENT THAT UNIFORMITY IN SENTENCING CANNOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EITHER THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL OFFENSES AND INDIVIDUAL OFFENDERS OR THE CONDITIONS OF THE PUNISHMENT AND AN OFFENDER'S CAPACITY FOR SUFFERING THAT PUNISHMENT. A TRULY FAIR, JUST, AND RATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WILL BE DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO ACHIEVE.