NCJ Number
61971
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 43 Issue: 2 Dated: (JUNE 1979) Pages: 3-8
Date Published
1979
Length
6 pages
Annotation
MYTHS ABOUT INDETERMINATE SENTENCING AND PAROLE, NEW DETERMINATE SENTENCING STATUTES, AND NEEDED PAROLE, SENTENCING, AND PRISON REFORM ARE DISCUSSED; APPROPRIATE REMEDIES ARE EMPHASIZED.
Abstract
CURRENT SENTENCING LEGISLATION AND PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND THE ABOLITION, OR NEAR ABOLITION, OF PAROLE. THESE REPEAL ARGUMENTS, HOWEVER, SEEK TO AVOID THE REALITIES OF THE SITUATION, AND ARE BASED ON WHOLLY MYTHICAL ASSUMPTIONS. IT IS ASSERTED THAT THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE EQUALS REHABILITATION. IN FACT, INDIVIDUALIZED TREATMENT IS NEGATED BY THE ALMOST UNIVERSAL PREVALENCE OF MANDATORY MINIMUM TERMS (NO MATTER HOW MUCH SOONER AN INDIVIDUAL IS SUITABLE FOR RELEASE) AND BY STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN MANY INDETERMINATE SENTENCE STATUTES. IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE MODERN PRISON, OPERATING UNDER THE INDETERMINATE SYSTEM, IS A FAILURE. SUCH FAILURE, HOWEVER, IS NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCING SYSTEM; DEFECTS ARE THE PROVISION FOR MINIMUM PAROLE ELIGIBILITY, THE AUTOMATIC MAXIMUM, AND SENTENCE-FIXING POWERS OF PAROLE BOARDS. SUPPOSEDLY, INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND PAROLE REMAIN TOGETHER, BUT ALL STATES HAVE PAROLE SYSTEMS, WHETHER THE SENTENCING SYSTEM IS 'INDETERMINATE' OR NOT. WHILE CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT IN PRISONS DEFINITELY SHOULD BE REFORMED, IT CANNOT BE PROVEN THAT THE FAILURE IS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO INDETERMINATE SENTENCING AND PAROLE PER SE, BUT RATHER THE LEGISLATIVE AND PRACTICAL INTERPRETATIONS GIVEN THEM TODAY. TO SAY THAT INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAWS ARE A CAUSE OF PRISON FAILURE IS INACCURATE BECAUSE THE SENTENCE FORM IS IRRELEVANT TO PRISON PRACTICES AND PROGRAMS. THE NEW DETERMINATE SENTENCE STATUTES PASSED RECENTLY IN CALIFORNIA, MAIN, AND INDIANA, AMONG OTHER STATES, HAVE MERELY SERVED TO CONTINUE OR WORSEN EXISTING PRACTICES AND PRISON TERMS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT SENTENCING REFORMS SHOULD FOCUS ON THE REDUCTION OF THE LENGTH OF PRISON SENTENCES FOR ALL BUT THE MOST SERIOUS OFFENSES. PAROLE REFORMS SHOULD INCLUDE REPRESENTATION OF THE PRISONER BY COUNSEL IN A FAIR HEARING, ELIMINATION OF MINIMUM TERM OF ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE, AND ARTICULATION OF PAROLE OR DISCHARGE PROVISIONS IN THE STATUTES. PRISON REFORMS ARE ALSO URGENTLY NEEDED, INCLUDING ADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE, REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL IN MATTERS RELATING TO PRISON LIFE, AND ABOLITION OF HUGE MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISONS. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED.