NCJ Number
10998
Journal
American Criminal Law Review Volume: 11 Issue: 3 Dated: (SPRING 1973) Pages: 695-720
Date Published
1973
Length
26 pages
Annotation
PROCEDURES AND ADVANTAGES OF THE MULTI-JUDGE PANEL AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE SENTENCING BOARD.
Abstract
THESE TWO APPROACHES TO THE PROBLEM OF SENTENCING DISPARITY DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY, IN THAT THE PANEL APPROACH PRESERVES TRADITIONAL JUDICIAL SENTENCING PREROGATIVES WHILE THE BOARD APPROACH DIVORCES FROM THE JUDICIARY ONE SUCH PREROGATIVE- THE DECISION AS TO LENGTH OF COMMITMENT- AND VESTS IT IN A BOARD OF NONJUDICIAL OFFICERS UNDER AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE STRUCTURE. PARTIALLY BECAUSE THE LATTER APPROACH ENTAILS A SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER REALLOCATION OF TRADITIONAL DECISION-MAKING POWERS THAN THE FORMER, THE AUTHOR FEELS THAT IT RAISES NOTICEABLY GREATER PROBLEMS. THE DUBIOUS VALUE OF THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND THE EFFECT OF THE NON-JUDICIAL BOARD ON THE PLEA NEGOTIATION PROCESS ARE TWO ISSUES WHICH HE SEES AS PARTICULARLY SIGNIFICANT. WITH REFERENCE TO THE EXPERIENCE OF JURISDICTIONS WHICH HAVE ADOPTED THE MULTI-JUDGE PANEL AND THE BOARD APPROACHES, THESE AND OTHER PROBLEMS ARE EXAMINED AND THE MERITS OF THE RESPECTIVE APPROACHES EVALUATED. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT THE MULTI-JUDGE PANEL IS PERHAPS THE MOST PRAGMATIC AND FEASIBLE SOLUTION TO EXISTING CORRECTIONAL DISPARITY. DETERMINATION OF GUILT AND DETERMINATION OF SENTENCE MAY BE THEORETICALLY DISTINCT AND SEPARABLE ACTIVITIES, YET GIVEN THE STATE OF CORRECTIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND RESOURCES, TOGETHER WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE NEEDS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT SUCH A SEPARATION WILL PROVE WORKABLE IN REALITY. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)