Have Legislative Sentencing Revisions Crested? (From Improving Management in Criminal Justice, P 39-52, 1980, Alvin W Cohn and Benjamin Ward, ed. - See NCJ-76036)

• NCJ Number: 76038
• Author(s): W Wilbanks; N Parisi
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 14 pages
• Sale Source: Sage Publications, Inc
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

According to this paper, there is no clear-cut difference between determinate and indeterminate sentencing practices. Most States reform the traditional indeterminate structure by introducing into 1t elements of the determinate model.

Abstract

Labeling sentencing schemes determinate or indeterminate in various States is erroneous, given the quantitative nature of determinancy, the complexity of sentencing, and the various stages of sentencing at which such labels may be applied. For example, in California, categorized as determinate, the judge is required to select the presumptive sentence set by the legislature, but may increase or decrease the sentence within the limited range of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Also, time actually served is not fixed, due to good-time reductions and judicial authority to resentence the inmate. It has been hoped that adoption of a more determinate sentencing structure will eliminate disparity and uncertainty in sentencing while preserving flexibility through a list of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Other expected advantages of the determinate model include shorter prison sentences, reduced tension in prison, and restricted leniency of the courts. However, the promises of sentencing reform may not be fulfilled by the fixed sentence. For example, uncertainty would not decrease, because the determinate sentencing structures do not usually affect probation eligibility. Disparity also may not decrease because of judicial authority to manipulate a sentence through aggravating or mitigating circumstances, enhancements, multiple counts, etc. Furthermore, a determinate sentence with a distant release date may cause anxiety in an inmate who can do little to influence his sentence length. Thus, it appears, that after drastic changes in the traditional indeterminate sentencing structure which have taken place in 1976 and 1977, the trend is now modify the indeterminate model through sentencing or parole guidelines. A review of the relevant literature, notes, and 14 references are included.