Use of Standards and the Wise Exercise of Discretion - Key to Effective Sentencing (From Resource Material Series, Number 22, P 124-134, 1982 - See NCJ-94945)

• NCJ Number: 94954
• Author(s): I J Shain
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 10 pages
• Publication Format: Document
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

In 1977, the Judicial Council of California developed a set of written standards to assist judges in sentencing offenders convicted of major offenses.

Abstract

For each offense, the Penal Code specifies a range of three sentences if commitment is deemed appropriate in the case; for example, the sentence ranges for rape are 2, 4, or 6 years. The judge must impose the middle sentence, called the base term, unless there are mitigating or aggravating circumstances which justify imposing the lower or upper term. Mitigating and aggravating factors are spelled out in the Judicial Council's Sentencing Rules and have to be cited at the time of sentencing. The judge has several sentencing options: he/she can place the offender on probation, fine him, commit him to a penal institution for less than a year, or sentence him to prison for one or more years. In deciding whether to grant probation, the judge must consider numerous factors, such as whether the defendant poses a danger to society. Seven guidelines are provided to help the judge in deciding whether to grant probation in unusual circumstances. In the first 3 years of the law's operation, more than 42,000 prison commitments were reviewed, and less than 42 cases were identified as having been disparately sentenced. Thus, California has gone a long way toward eradicating the more flagrant examples of disparate sentencing. A chart and a table are included.