NCJ Number
81313
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 45 Issue: 4 Dated: (December 1981) Pages: 24-29
Date Published
1981
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This article provides new directives for improving the sentencing system. These directives rely on a retributive-justice model predicated on Andrew von Hirsch's and Richard Singer's ideas of sentencing.
Abstract
The current criminal justice literature reflects disillusionment with an individualized sentencing approach which results in vast disparities in sentences rendered by the same and/or different judges to individuals who have committed similar types of offenses. The philosophy of retribution demands a reduction in sentencing disparity because it requires that sentences be based on the serious nature of the offense and be proportional to the harm done by the offender. Recently, some scholars have attempted to pursue a retributive model in which a 'just deserts' philosophy focuses less on vengeance and more on a fair, rational sentencing system. The retributive models developed by Hirsch and Singer are rational methods of allocating criminal punishment. The models recognize that both equality of punishment and proportionality are necessary conditions for a fair sentencing system. However, Hirsch and Singer disagree with one another on how prosecutorial discretion should be controlled. Singer, who would have guidelines established for prosecutors to use, seems to have the better approach. The major components of this suggested retributive-justice model of sentencing would include the elimination of sentencing disparity and mandatory use of sentencing guidelines in which the sentence is based predominantly on the seriousness of the offense, a sentence which is proportional to the amount of harm done or attempted, prosecutorial guidelines which are mandatorily imposed, and a criminal code which specifies the goals of the model. In addition, the model would eliminate good time and parole, establish a restitution format, establish a national appellate court for sentence review, and include appeal of the sentence by both the government and the defendant if it is outside the guidelines. The model would also afford due process procedures to the sentencing hearing by providing a systematic, fair procedure for all judges to follow in determining sentence. A total of 22 footnotes are included.