NCJ Number
144135
Journal
University of Colorado Law Review Volume: 64 Issue: 3 Dated: (1993) Pages: 679-705
Date Published
1993
Length
27 pages
Annotation
Whatever defects exist in sentencing guidelines, the author believes that the adoption of guidelines represents the only approach for States to follow in managing the fundamental issues of sentence discretion and accountability.
Abstract
Similar sentencing guidelines have been developed in Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, and Kansas; these guidelines have abolished most discretionary release from prison and have developed typical case offense classifications, two features that significantly differentiate them from sentencing guidelines in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Florida. One of the most important structural characteristics distinguishing sentencing guidelines in Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon from determinate sentencing systems and from the Federal guideline system concerns offense classification based on the "typical case." Features that predominate in many nonguideline State sentencing systems include limited judicial sentencing discretion, complex releasing structures, and limited correctional resources. Judicial sentencing discretion is preferable over discretion at any other point in the sentencing process. Two types of accountability are needed in sentencing, case level accountability and systemic accountability. With respect to nonimprisonment sanctions, States should be aware of the need for a continuum of sanctions that respond appropriately to the range of offenders and also recognize the enormous competition for access to these sanctions. Like imprisonment, nonimprisonment sanctions should be structured in a way that enhances judicial discretion. 76 footnotes