NCJ Number
63126
Journal
Judges' Journal Volume: 17 Issue: 1 Dated: (WINTER 1978) Pages: 12-15,44-45
Date Published
1978
Length
6 pages
Annotation
RESPONSIBILITY FOR SENTENCE DETERMINATION IS DISCUSSED, EMPHASIZING THE NEED FOR JUDICIAL SENTENCING AND GUIDELINES TO ASSURE EQUAL TREATMENT FOR OFFENDERS.
Abstract
ALTHOUGH THE LAY PUBLIC FAVORS JUDICIAL SENTENCING, AUTHORITY IN THIS AREA IS OFTEN SHARED BY JUDICIAL SENTENCING COUNCILS, PROBATION OFFICERS, PROSECUTORS, THE LEGISLATURE, AND THE PAROLE BOARD. BECAUSE THESE ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING AUTHORITIES ARE INADEQUATE, TIME-CONSUMING, OR UNREALISTIC, THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTUAL SENTENCING SHOULD REST WITH THE TRIAL JUDGE. A STATISTICAL AND ANALYTICAL STUDY OF ACTUAL CASES BEFORE TRIAL JUDGES WAS USED TO PRODUCE A SYSTEM OF GUIDELINES FOR JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING. THE DATA HELPED IDENTIFY THOSE CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFENSES AND OFFENDERS WHICH APPEARED TO ACCOUNT FOR JUSTIFIABLE VARIATIONS IN SENTENCING. THIS DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL WAS THEN GIVEN TO JUDGES AS AN AID TO CONTROL AND MONITOR THEIR SENTENCING POLICIES. EVENTUALLY GUIDELINES WERE ESTABLISHED WHICH PROVIDED A MODEL SENTENCE TO EACH TRIAL COURT JUDGE, SPECIFICALLY RELEVANT TO THE CASE AT HAND, AND REPRESENTING WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE AVERAGE SENTENCE OF ALL THE JUDGES IN THAT JURISDICTION. THE GOAL OF THIS METHOD IS EQUITY IN SENTENCING PRACTICES BY ACHIEVING CONSISTENCY OVER TIME AND OVER AN ENTIRE COURT SYSTEM. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (MRK)