NCJ Number
154529
Journal
Intergovernmental Perspective Volume: 19 Issue: 2 Dated: (Spring 1993) Pages: 14-17
Date Published
1993
Length
4 pages
Annotation
When appropriately used as part of the criminal justice process, sentencing deters and even prevents crime; sentencing should not be used, however, as a substitute for crucial crime prevention measures.
Abstract
Disparities between sentences imposed by different judges may create an impression of inequity. While unwarranted disparity should be avoided, every criminal case is different and every defendant is unique. Sentence disparities are often warranted to account for factual differences in circumstances between cases. The importance of individualized sentencing versus mandatory minimum sentencing is beginning to receive renewed attention. In addition, selective rather than automatic use of imprisonment is critical to the effectiveness of sentencing as an anticrime measure. In some instances, deferring sentence pending rehabilitation efforts may create a meaningful incentive for defendants to avoid further crime. Some cases may be removed from the serious category by courts, prosecutors, or the police at an early stage and granted the equivalent of station house or precinct probation. The role of plea bargaining in the sentencing process is discussed, and the need to evaluate sentencing in relation to the criminal justice system as a whole is emphasized. 12 notes