NCJ Number
44776
Journal
Crime and Delinquency Volume: 24 Issue: 1 Dated: (JANUARY 1978) Pages: 81-88
Date Published
1978
Length
8 pages
Annotation
THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ALLEGED FAILURE OF PAROLE JUSTIFIES ABANDONING THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCING SYSTEM IN FAVOR OF DETERMINATE SENTENCING IS COUNTERED.
Abstract
PAROLE WAS ORGINALLY CONCEIVED AS BRINGING TO FRUITION THE REHABILITATION PROCESS BEGUN IN THE PRISON, NOT AS BEGINNING REHABILITATION AFTER PUNISHMENT. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REHABILITATIVE IDEAL DEMANDED AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE, BECAUSE THE LENGTH OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO CORRECT OR REHABILITATE AN OFFENDER WAS NOT KNOWN AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING. A MECHANISM FOR RELEASE UPON COMPLETION OF REHABILITATION WAS NEEDED, AND PAROLE FULFILLED THIS DECISIONMAKING ROLE. IN ADDITION, PAROLE PROVIDED COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, THEORETICALLY TO AID THE OFFENDER IN HIS TRANSITION TO THE COMMUNITY. SEVERAL STUDIES HAVE QUESTIONED THE ABILITY OF PRISONS TO REHABILITATE OFFENDERS AND HAVE CONCLUDED GENERALLY THAT REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS WITHIN THE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM DO NOT REDUCE RECIDIVISM. TO EXPECT PAROLE TO REHABILITATE INMATES WHO HAVE BEEN DEBILITATED BY THE CORRECTIONAL PROCESS IS ASKING TOO MUCH. THE FAILURE OF PAROLE -- OR OF ANY ONE OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE REHABILITATIVE IDEAL, INCLUDING PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION, PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION, OR PRISONER CLASSIFICATION -- IS INADEQUATE TO JUSTIFY THE CALL FOR DETERMINATE SENTENCING. IT IS THE REHABILITATIVE IDEAL ITSELF THAT IS AT ISSUE. AS FAITH IN THAT IDEAL DIMINISHES, JUSTIFICATION FOR THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND FOR THE DECISION FUNCTION OF THE PAROLE SYSTEM BECOMES LESS TENABLE. THOSE CONCERNED ABOUT SENTENCING PRACTICES ARE URGED TO ASSESS ALL OF THE ISSUES AND TO EXAMINE A WIDE VARIETY OF SENTENCING ALTERNATIVES.