Sentencing Reform and the Structuring of Pre-Trial Discretion (From Sentencing Reform - Guidance or Guidelines?, P 139-162, 1987, Martin Wasik and Ken Pease, eds. - See NCJ-103986)

• NCJ Number: 103994
• Author(s): A K Bottomley
• Date Published: 1987
• Length: 24 pages
• Sale Source: Marcel Dekker, Inc
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom

Annotation

This study, which focuses on England and Wales, addresses emergent themes in criminal justice research, the implications of sentencing guidelines for the relocation of discretionary power, cautioning guidelines and the decision to prosecute, and a proposed strategy for integrated decisionmaking in the criminal justice system.

Abstract

Recent criminal justice research has focused on disparity, discretion, and the system or nonsystem characteristics of criminal justice administration. Research on disparity in criminal justice decisionmaking has produced an interest in constraints on discretionary decisionmaking, which has in turn produced an awareness that constraints in one area of case processing impact discretion in another area. Sentencing guidelines, which contain judicial sentencing discretion, have displaced discretion to the prosecutor, who can determine sentence by the selection of the charge. British studies, however, suggest that prosecutors are less concerned with sentence outcome than with the lodging of a charge most likely to obtain a conviction. The British Home Office recently composed guidelines for police cautioning and prosecutorial screening for both juveniles and adults, based on evidence and offense seriousness. Any subsequent sentencing guidelines should reflect the rationales of these guidelines. A strategy for integrated decisionmaking in criminal justice should give primacy to articulated policies, recognize the interrelatedness of case decision points, and use model structures for decisionmaking to facilitate consistency. 30 references.