NCJ Number
138548
Date Published
1991
Length
244 pages
Annotation
This book explores the myth of the determinate sentencing ideal by addressing two questions: what happens when a sentencing model ignores crime control purposes of the criminal sanction and fails to allocate sentencing authority among criminal justice decisionmakers; and what happened to the determinate sentencing model which once seemed destined to be the dominant sentencing paradigm.
Abstract
Determinate sentencing proposals that gained prominence in the 1960's and early 1970's were rooted in theories of retributive justice and disclaimed reliance on crime control objectives. Punishment for its own sake formed the basis of the determinate sentencing model. At issue, however, is whether any sentencing system can divorce itself from crime control which is at the heart of most punishment rationales. Rehabilitation serves crime control by changing the offender, incapacitation controls crime by restraining the offender, and deterrence furthers crime control by preventing crime among nonoffenders. Retribution, often referred to as just deserts, is the only sentencing system that pursues punishment for its own sake. The author explains how defense and law enforcement advocates agreed that determinate sentencing was a much needed reform. A brief history of sentencing reform in the United States is presented, and attempts to develop a modern rehabilitative system as opposed to determinate sentencing in New York are described. Appendixes contain public hearings on determinate sentencing, a list of persons interviewed to obtain information on determinate sentencing, and New York legislation affecting the State's sentencing process and guidelines. References, notes, and tables