Ensuring Appropriate Use of a New Penal Measure (From Periodic Restriction of Liberty, P 30-42, 1985, Roger Shaw and Rita Hutchison, eds. - See NCJ-101459)

• NCJ Number: 101462
• Author(s): B Harris
• Date Published: 1985
• Length: 13 pages
• Sale Source: University of Cambridge
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

A discussion of judicial discretion in sentencing considers the difficulties of clearly specifying the intentions underlying particular sentencing options and the problems involved in trying to limit judicial discretion.

Abstract

Sentencing options in the United Kingdom have expanded from imprisonment and fines to community service, suspended sentences, and other options. The excessive use of suspended sentences and the apparent increase in prison populations resulting from the incarceration of those who failed to meet the terms of the suspended sentence show how the actual use of a sentence can diverge from the goals underlying its introduction. In the United Kingdom, mandatory sentences are almost nonexistent. However, the courts and sometimes the statutes have specified criteria for the use of particular sentences. Administrative intervention into sentencing practices has also occurred. However, British efforts to guide sentencing have not been nearly as extreme as those in the United States. The most useful guidance in sentencing is being provided by the 'guideline' judgments issued by the Court of Appeal in particular areas of sentencing. These guidelines can be continuously and easily modified as indicated by experience and are thus preferable to statutory guidance. A discussion of this conference presentation focuses on intermittent sentences. 27 reference notes.