NCJ Number
68125
Journal
SASD BULLETIN Issue: 6 Dated: (FEBRUARY 1980) Pages: 40-49
Date Published
1980
Length
10 pages
Annotation
THIS SPEECH CONTAINS THE OPINIONS OF A HIGH COURT JUDGE ABOUT THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SENTENCING PROCESS, THE SHORTCOMING OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM, AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE JUDGE.
Abstract
THE TERM 'VIOLENT OFFENDER' RAISES A QUESTION OF DEFINITION. ONCE THE OFFENDER IS SO CATEGORIZED AS VIOLENT, THE CHOICE OPEN TO A JUDGE IS NARROWED BECAUSE THE PENAL SYSTEM IS CONCEIVED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND IS GIVEN ITS BASIC CHARACTERISTICS BY POLITICIANS. THE JUDGE GIVES THE SYSTEM PRACTICAL REALITY; THE PRISON STRIVE TO GIVE IT RATIONALITY. THE IDEAL PENAL SYSTEM HAS AS ITS OBJECTIVE SOMETHING BETWEEN THE TWO IDEAS OF REHABILITATION AND PUNISHMENT. THE ULTIMATE GOAL HOWEVER, IS THE REDUCTION OF CRIME. THE SENTENCING PROCESS MUST NOT CONCENTRATE ON THE INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE VICTIM AND OF SOCIETY IN GENERAL. THE JUDGE, HAVING A REDUCTIVIST OBJECTIVE IN SENTENCING, MUST BE CONSISTENT IN IMPOSING SENTENCES. HE MUST EXERCISE CARE (I.E., BE SURE OF FACTS AND GIVE DUE WEIGHT TO THEM). ABOVE ALL, THE JUDGE MUST EXERCISE COMMON SENSE. THE JUDGE WHO FOLLOWS THESE TENETS WILL BE AN EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENT FOR REDUCING OF VIOLENT CRIME. (MFE)