LET THE PUNISHMENT FIT THE CRIME (FROM SOCIAL PROBLEMS IN TODAY'S WORLD, 1978, BY JOHN PERRY AND ERNA PERRY)

• NCJ Number: 56928
• Author(s): A DERSHOWITZ
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 7 pages
• Corporate Author: Little, Brown and Co
• Publication Format: Document
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: REPRINTED FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, DECEMBER 27, 1975, P 26-27

Annotation

THE TREND TOWARD GREATER CERTAINTY AND UNIFORMITY IN SENTENCING AS OPPOSED TO INDETERMINATE SENTENCING IS EXAMINED IN TERMS OF CRIME AND PUNISHMENT.

Abstract

ALMOST EVERY STATE GIVES CONSIDERABLE SENTENCING DISCRETION TO JUDGES, AND ALL STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOY INDETERMINATE SENTENCING FOR MOST SERIOUS CRIMES. INDETERMINATE SENTENCING MEANS THAT THE AMOUNT OF TIME A CONVICTED CRIMINAL SERVES IS DECIDED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, GENERALLY CALLED A PAROLE BOARD OR AN ADULT AUTHORITY, DURING THE TIME PRISONERS ARE SERVING THEIR SENTENCE RATHER THAN BY LEGISLATURES OR SENTENCING JUDGES. INDETERMINATE SENTENCING REPRESENTS A MAJOR REFORM DESIGNED TO SUBSTITUTE REHABILITATION FOR RETRIBUTION. WHILE LAW AND ORDER CONSERVATIVES MAINTAIN THAT INDETERMINATE SENTENCING IS JUST ONE MORE FORM OF CODDLING CRIMINALS, DEFENDERS OF PRISONERS AND PRISONERS THEMSELVES FEEL THAT IT HAS RESULTED IN TOO MUCH POWER BEING VESTED IN PAROLE BOARDS AND LONGER STAYS IN PRISONS. CONSENSUS IS EMERGING ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF UNIFORMITY IN SENTENCING, BASED ON DISPARITIES IN SENTENCING DECISIONS. THE CRITICAL ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER TO ABOLISH INDETERMINATE SENTENCING WHILE RETAINING JUDICIAL DISCRETION. RATHER, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE SYSTEM OF WIDE JUDICIAL DISCRETION. RATHER, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE SYSTEM OF WIDE JUDICIAL DISCRETION COUPLED WITH INDETERMINATE SENTENCING SHOULD BE REPLACED BY LEGISLATIVELY FIXED SENTENCES. TWO MAJOR REFORM PROPOSALS ALONG THE LATTER ISSUE HAVE BEEN MADE. THE FIRST, CALLED FLAT TIME SENTENCING, MEANS THAT LEGISLATURES DEFINE ONE SINGLE SENTENCE FOR EACH CRIME. THE SECOND, KNOWN AS THE MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE, ELIMINATES ALL DISCRETION TO GO BELOW A CERTAIN MINMUM SENTENCE THAT MUST BE SERVED FOR A GIVEN CRIME REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES. CERTAIN GROUPS FAVOR FIXED MANDATORY SENTENCES FOR PARTICULAR CRIMES, AND MANY CONSERVATIVE PROPONENTS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FAVOR THE LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT OF MANDATORY DEATH PENALTY STATUTES. MORE FUNDAMENTALLY, HOWEVER, THERE SEEMS TO BE WIDESPREAD AGREEMENT THAT THE EXISTING SYSTEM OF SENTENCING DOES NOT WORK AND THAT THERE IS A CLEAR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FACT THAT MANY DEFENDANTS WHO ARE SENTENCED TO PRISON RECEIVE EXTREMELY LONG SENTENCES AND MANY CONVICTED SERIOUS CRIMINALS RECEIVE NO IMPRISONMENT AT ALL. IT APPEARS THAT REFORM GEARED TO MAKING PUNISHMENT FIT THE CRIME IS FORTHCOMING.