JUDGE'S ROLE IN SENTENCING - BASIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE SENTENCES (FROM UNAFEI RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES N 12, 1976, BY YOSHIO SUZUKI)

• NCJ Number: 45383
• Author(s): I J SHAIN
• Date Published: 1976
• Length: 14 pages
• Corporate Author: United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United Nations
• Note: PRESENTED AT THE 42ND SEMINAR COURSE ON THE FORMATION OF A SOUND SENTENCING STRUCTURE AND POLICY, FEBRUARY 24 TO MARCH 27, 1976

Annotation

THE OBJECTIVES AND GOALS OF SENTENCING, FUNDAMENTAL JUDICIAL AND SOCIAL CONSIDERATION OF SENTENCING, AND CRITERIA FOR THE JUDGE'S SENTENCING DECISION ARE DISCUSSED.

Abstract

THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSES AND GOALS OF SENTENCING ARE LISTED AS RETRIBUTION, DETERRENCE, ISOLATION AND RESTRAINT OF THE OFFENDER, AND REHABILITATION; EACH IS DESCRIBED, AND ITS PROS AND CONS ARE PRESENTED. THE CONFLICTS INHERENT IN SENTENCING, I.E., THE SIMULTANEOUS SATISFACTION OF CONTRADICTORY OBJECTIVES, AND THE DILEMMAS FACED BY JUDGES ARE NOTED. PRESENTENCE INFORMATION ABOUT A DEFENDANT'S PRIOR RECORD AND BACKGROUND WHICH COULD INFLUENCE SENTENCING CAN ALSO BE HELPFUL TO A JUDGE. AN EXAMINATION OF SENTENCING CRITERIA COVERS THE DECISION TO SENTENCE WHEN THE DEFENDANT'S CRIME IS SERIOUS AND HE HAS A FAIRLY LENGTHY RECORD OF PRIOR OFFENSES, WHEN HE IS A DANGEROUS PERSON WHOSE BEHAVIOR POSES A THREAT TO SOCIETY, WHEN THERE IS A STRONG LIKELIHOOD THAT THE DEFENDANT WILL COMMIT ANOTHER CRIME UNLESS HE IS CONFINED TO A PENAL INSTITUTION, AND WHEN THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE DEFENDANT'S CRIME WILL BE DEPRECIATED BY A LESSER SENTENCE. SENTENCING CRITERIA ARE ALSO PRESENTED FOR THE DECISION NOT TO IMPOSE SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS NOT A CONFIRMED CRIMINAL, WHEN THERE WERE MANY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING HIS OFFENSES, WHEN HE NEITHER THREATENED NOR SERIOUSLY HARMED HIS VICTIM(S), WHEN THERE WAS STRONG PROVOCATION FOR THE ACT OR IF THE VICTIM'S CONDUCT MIGHT HAVE HELPED INDUCE IT, WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS WILLING TO MAKE RESTITUTION, WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE DEFENDANT WILL COMMIT FURTHER OFFENSES, WHEN HIS IMPRISONMENT WOULD BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, AND WHEN HIS BACKGROUND SUGGESTS THAT HE IS LIKELY TO RESPOND AFFIRMATIVELY TO EITHER A PROBATION SUPERVISION OR A SUSPENDED SENTENCE. THE AUTHOR NOTES THAT SOME DISPARITY IN SENTENCING IS ALWAYS LIKELY TO EXIST BECAUSE SENTENCING IS NOT A SCIENCE INVOLVING THE USE OF ABSOLUTE CRITERIA BUT AN ATTEMPT TO ACCOMMODATE MANY DIVERSE AND CONFLICTING INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL OBJECTIVES. FURTHER RESEARCH TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTIVENESS AND APPROPRIATENESS OF VARIOUS ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES IS NEEDED SO THAT THE JUDGES WILL HAVE THE BENEFIT OF SCIENCTIFICALLY AND EMPIRICALLY TESTED BASES OF INFORMATION WITH WHICH TO MAKE SENTENCING DECISIONS. (DS)