Criminal Sentencing Alternatives - A Report of a Wingspread Conference, March 21-22, 1977

• NCJ Number: 81972
• Author(s): R French
• Date Published: Unknown
• Length: 32 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: Wisconsin Council on Criminal Justice; Wisconsin Dept of Health and Social Services; Johnson Foundation
• Corporate Author: Johnson Foundation
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: A Wingspread Report

Annotation

Discussion themes at a 1977 Wisconsin conference examine alternative approaches to sentencing, with particular attention to the pros and cons of determinate and indeterminate sentencing.

Abstract

Problem areas identified in the current Wisconsin indeterminate sentencing scheme were disparity of sentences for similar crimes, uncertainty of release from prison on parole, lessened deterrent effect of prison terms because of the uncertainty of how much time will actually be served, parole boards' difficulty in accurately predicting when a person has been rehabilitated, difficulty in planning for future prison populations, and inmate anger and frustration due to the apparent arbitrariness of the sentencing system. General approaches identified for dealing with the problems of indeterminate sentencing were (1) determinate sentencing, where the legislature sets definite prison terms for specific crimes, giving the judge only slight discretion to increase or decrease the statutory sentence; (2) the judicial method, where the judge has to impose a flat-time sentence but has wide discretion in imposing sentences up to the maximum; and (3) the administrative method, which narrows the discretionary powers of the parole board by establishing parole dates in advance, based on the offender's conduct and the nature of the crime. Conference discussions tended to polarize around arguments for and against determinate and indeterminate sentencing. Many viewed determinate sentencing as the more just and effective sentencing approach from a deterrence perspective, while its opponents viewed it as focusing on imprisonment as punishment while alternatives to imprisonment would be deemphasized. While few argued for continuation of the current system, many felt the current sentencing system could be improved by the establishment of sentencing guidelines and other approaches designed to reduce disparity and uncertainty in sentencing. Conference participants included criminal justice professionals, judges, legislators, attorneys, and interested citizens.