NCJ Number
86323
Date Published
1981
Length
5 pages
Annotation
This article describes types of determinate sentencing, including sentencing guidelines, and considers the possible effects of determinate sentencing.
Abstract
There is not as yet much systematic statistical support for the widespread view that the poor and blacks are the victims of the discriminatory use of judicial discretion, except in the case of capital punishment; however, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that among judges and across jurisdictions, similar offenses are receiving disparate sentences. In an effort to reduce such sentencing disparity, various types of determinate sentencing laws have been enacted. They include the reduction or elimination of the role of the parole board; 'flat-time' laws that sharply narrow the range of possible sentences from which the judge can select; 'presumptive sentencing' laws which provide for three sentences for each offense, with the middle range sentence to be used except where mitigating circumstances are deemed by the judge to require the use of the higher or lower sentence; and the use of a sentencing commission, such as has been proposed for the Federal code, to establish sentencing policies and guidelines for use at the judge's discretion, but when the judge imposes less than the minimum recommended sentence, the prosecution may appeal, and when the sentence is above the maximum recommended, the defense may appeal. There is evidence that if a range of sentences is certain for a particular crime, the deterrent effect is greater. Further, if habitual criminals are incapacitated, the crime rate should be significantly impacted. Determinate sentencing thus renders equal justice by applying uniform sentences to fit the crime and offers the possibility of reducing the crime rate.