NCJ Number
80222
Journal
Indian Journal of Criminology Volume: 9 Issue: 2 Dated: (July 1981) Pages: 120-127
Date Published
1981
Length
8 pages
Annotation
Studies of sentencing disparity in various countries are reviewed, and implications are drawn.
Abstract
Studies of sentencing disparity in the United States have tended to show disparity rooted in the personalities and subjective values of judges; disparity based in legal factors, such as type and seriousness of offense, number of charges, and prior criminal record; whether the offender had a bench or jury trial; whether the offender had private counsel or an appointed lawyer; and discrimination according to race and sex. In England, a study showed that imprisonment policies are apparently related to the social characteristics of the jurisdiction, the social constitution of the bench, and the bench's particular view of the crime problem in the jurisdiction. An Israeli study of the sentencing policies of nine judges in three district courts during 1956 concluded that sentencing disparities were due primarily to the sentencing attitudes and dispositions of the judges. A Canadian study of sentencing disparity among judges reported that differences in sentencing were due to a lack of uniform sentencing guidelines. Sentence disparity in India has been found due to the nature of pleas, type of crime, personal differences between judges, and variation in sentencing policy between courts. Efforts to reduce sentencing disparity have included appellate review of sentencing decisions, use of prediction devices, legislative criteria for sentencing, changes in indeterminate sentencing laws, a sentencing institute, and a sentencing council. Forty-five references are listed.