NCJ Number
80646
Date Published
1980
Length
13 pages
Annotation
Arguing that schemes for assigning determinate sentences for specific types of crime can only prove to be dangerous, or at least unworkable, this Finnish researcher reviews two models of sentencing guidelines and recommends that which is less rigid and can be molded to the crime in question.
Abstract
Basically, there are two types of sentencing models in Finland. The first, an adaptable model, is established on a sort of trial and error method. For instance, when a new crime is introduced along with new technology or a certain crime type, such as drunken driving, becomes a significant social problem, a sentence is created to coincide with the seriousness of the crime and with like consequences for similar crimes. This sentence may be adjusted time and time again as experience proves it too lenient or strict or too costly to dispense. A hierarchical model, however, such as that drawn up by the Finnish Penal Committee, attempts to set specific sentences for a crime type. This model emulates corporate or bureaucratic planning activity in which a goal or objective is determined and steps are created to achieve it. The objective of the committee in this case would be the good of society. Many subjective factors enter in, however, in deciding the damage done to social good from an offense. Furthermore, damage from the particular crime, the criminal's guilt, and the cost of dispensing the sentence have to be taken into consideration, and these factors are not fixed. In addition, it can be dangerous to allow a small homogeneous body like the committee to make decisions on what constitutes damage to social good. For these reasons, the committee's sentencing scheme should be used as a framework for making sentencing decisions and for doing short- and long-term planning regarding sentencing, but should not be used as a determinate sentence scheme.