NCJ Number
84123
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 46 Issue: 2 Dated: (June 1982) Pages: 57-62
Date Published
1982
Length
6 pages
Annotation
Because of legislatively mandated sentencing for particular offenses, discretion impacting sentencing is shifting to earlier stages of processing, and the need to reduce disparity in the use of the probation officer's discretion in recommending sentencing at these earlier stages is crucial to justice.
Abstract
Disparity in the use of discretion in the criminal justice system occurs when the decision to arrest, prosecute, sentence, release, or revoke a person is based on race, color, creed, political beliefs, or a number of other internalized factors, rather than on a crime's seriousness or an offender's potential for rehabilitation. Legislators have sought to reduce disparity in sentencing by limiting the sentencing discretion of judges. This not only reduces the court's capacity to render individualized justice, but also shifts the focal point of discretionary decisionmaking to prosecutorial plea bargaining that determines the charge and consequent sentence. The prosecutor should properly consult the probation officer for a sentencing recommendation at this point so that the plea bargaining outcome will be appropriate for the offender and the severity of behavior involved. A biased sentencing recommendation by the probation officer will introduce disparity into the system at this point. The same is true in soliciting the probation officer opinion about whether to offer the arrestee the option for a diversion program in lieu of a court hearing. There is a substantial need for research to analyze the problem of disparity in sentencing recommendations and develop training that will correct the identified deficiencies. Twenty references are listed.