DANGERS OF THE NEW DIRECTIONS IN AMERICAN SENTENCING (FROM NEW DIRECTIONS IN SENTENCING, P 32-50, 1980, BY BRIAN A GROSMAN - SEE NCJ-71049)

• NCJ Number: 69398
• Author(s): N N KITTRIE
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 19 pages
• Sale Source: Butterworth
• Language: English
• Country: Canada

Annotation

WEAKNESSESS OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCING PROCEDURES ARE SUMMARIZED, EFFORTS TO CORRECT SENTENCING DISPARITIES AND REDUCE OFFENDER UNCERTAINTY ARE LISTED, AND THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF A RETURN TO FIXED SENTENCES ARE CITED.

Abstract

WEAKNESSES OF THE THERAPEUTIC MODEL OF SENTENCING THAT HAVE RESULTED IN A RETURN TO THE TRADITIONAL PENAL APPROACH OF REDUCED JUDICIAL DISCRETION AND DIMINUTION OF THE REHABILITATIVE IDEAL, INCLUDE (1) SENTENCE DISPARITIES RESULTING FROM PLEA BARGAINING; (2) SENTENCING DECISIONS REFLECTING THE PERSONAL VALUES OF THE JUDGE OR THE PROSECUTOR, RATHER THAN THE OBJECTIVE NATURE OF THE CRIME; (3) THE USE BY THE COURTS OF THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE OR A SENTENCE SUBJECT TO PAROLE AS A MEANS OF PASSING THE DECISION OF A RELEASE DATE TO THE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES OR TO PAROLE BOARDS, AND (4) THE LACK OF OPPORTUNITY FOR OFFENDERS TO HAVE THEIR SENTENCE REVIEWED BY A HIGHER COURT. TWO PRIMARY GOALS OF RECENT SENTENCING INITIATIVES ARE THE CURING OF SENTENCE DISPARITY AND THE REDUCTION OF OFFENDER UNCERTAINTY. METHODS OF REALIZING THESE GOALS INCLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF UNIFORM SANCTIONS, THE CURTAILMENT OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION BY LEGISLATIVE FIAT, THE ABOLITION OR REDUCTION IN PAROLE BOARD AUTHORITY, AND THE CREATION OF SENTENCING COUNCILS COMPOSED OF SEVERAL SITTING JUDGES. HOWEVER, ANY INCREASE IN AVERAGE SENTENCE LENGTH FROM SENTENCING REFORMS MAY OVERCROWD THE PRISONS. ADDITIONALLY, THE INCREASED POWER EXERCISED BY STATE LEGISLATURES VIS-A-VIS THE COURTS AND SENTENCING POLICIES MAY RESULT IN LESS FLEXIBILITY IN SENTENCING POLICY, AND MAY MAKE THE FIELD OF SENTENCING MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO POLITICAL INFLUENCE. ALSO, THE DIMINUTION OF JUDICIAL FLEXIBILITY FOR IMPOSING INDIVIDUAL SENTENCES MAY QUASH DIVERSIONARY PROGRAMS. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT FIXED SENTENCES ARE SIMPLISTIC ANSWERS TO COMPLEX SENTENCING NEEDS, AND THAT REFORMS, ALTHOUGH NEEDED, SHOULD RETAIN INCENTIVES FOR REHABILITATION AND SHOULD REAFFIRM THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COURTS AND CORRECTIONS AUTHORITIES IN SENTENCING REFORM. A TOTAL OF 29 NOTES ARE PROVIDED.