Use of Non-Custodial Alternatives to Imprisonment: The Point of View of the Court (From Alternatives to Custodial Sanctions, P 194-227, 1988 -- See NCJ-114520)

• NCJ Number: 114525
• Author(s): C Eliaerts
• Date Published: 1988
• Length: 34 pages
• Sale Source: Government Printing Ctre
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: Finland
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

Court sentencing practices in Belgium and other countries are influenced by a variety of factors, including the attitudes of court personnel, the availability of alternatives, the use of out-of-court processes, the perceived effectiveness of alternatives, the crime rate relative to prison capacity, the legal framework, and the interactions among the various components of the criminal justice system.

Abstract

Factors often considered in sentencing in individual cases include the gravity of the offense, prior criminal record, the nature of the offense, offender characteristics, and the impact of the offense on the victim. In the absence of specific sentencing guidelines, judges have considerable discretion in the imposition of noncustodial sentences. Sentencing decisions will be influenced by judges training and specialization and attitudes on penal matters and punishment. In general, judges who are oriented toward resocialization or reintegration of offenders will be more favorable toward the imposition of noncustodial sentences. In the present repressive penal climate, an overall reductionist strategy must be pursued to encourage the use of alternatives to incarceration. Such a strategy would require abolishing imprisonment for certain offenses, imposing legal minimum terms of imprisonment, introducing sentencing guidelines, improving judicial training, and involving judges in the execution of sentences. An infrastructure to support alternatives and a policy shift toward prevention also are needed.