Federal Parole and Federal Sentencing - A Report on the Present and Some Thoughts for the Future

• NCJ Number: 88229
• Journal: Loyola University Law Journal Volume: 13 Issue: 4 Dated: (Summer 1982) Pages: 669-720
• Author(s): D I Gottlieb
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 52 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

The effects of the Federal parole guidelines established by the U.S. Parole Commission in 1973 are examined, with emphasis on their impact on the sentencing system and their implications for sentencing reform.

Abstract

The guidelines reflected disillusionment with the rehabilitative ideal. They predicate the release decision on a computation of the severity of the current offense and the inmate's prior behavior. The guidelines aim for equity by structuring discretion so that prisoners with similar backgrounds and offense characteristics will be released after serving the same amount of time. The guidelines achieve determinacy by requiring that the inmate's presumptive release date be fixed shortly after the sentence begins and by permitting only minor changes in the date as a result of positive institutional conduct. The quality of decisionmaking depends heavily on accurate factfinding. The presentence investigation report prepared by the probation office for the sentencing judge is generally the crucial document for guideline assessment. The parole guidelines have effectively turned formerly indeterminate terms into determinate sentences but without an overall change in Federal sentencing statutes. If parole continues, changes should take place in the Parole Commission factfinding process. Evidentiary hearings should take place at sentencing on any contested factual assertions in the presentence investigation report which were not resolved by the trial or plea. These factual determinations should be communicated to the Parole Commission. Finally, hearing examiners should continue their efforts to become more proficient in guideline application. In response to the criticisms of its decisionmaking, the Parole Commission has adopted a number of major alterations to the guidelines, effective January 31, 1983. Footnotes and an appendix presenting part of the revised guidelines are provided.