NCJ Number
34339
Date Published
1976
Length
48 pages
Annotation
'DEFINITE SENTENCING' PROVIDES FOR DEFINITE TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT TO BE SELECTED FROM NARROWED SENTENCE RANGES AS ONE OF THE MANY SENTENCING OPTIONS (DIVERSION, PROBATION, RESTITUTION) AVAILABLE TO JUDGES.
Abstract
SIGNIFICANT DISSATISFACTION WITH THE WIDE AMOUNT OF DISCRETION EMBODIED IN THE INDEFINITE SENTENCE STRUCTURE HAS RESULTED IN EXTENSIVE INTEREST IN CHANGING OUR CURRENT STRUCTURE AND PRACTICES AND, IN PARTICULAR, ON THE PROPOSAL TO NARROW SENTENCE DISCRETION BY ESTABLISHING A DEFINITE SENTENCING SYSTEM. IN THE STATES STUDIED, THREE DISTINGUISHABLE APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTING A DEFINITE SENTENCING SYSTEM HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTED LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND ADMINISTRATIVE. UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE METHOD (WHICH HAS BEEN PROPOSED BUT NOT YET ENACTED IN CALIFORNIA, ILLINOIS, AND MINNESOTA), THE LEGISLATURE FIXES THE PENALTY STATUTORILY, WITH LIMITED ALLOWANCE FOR JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN THE CASE OF AGGRAVATING OR MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. WITH JUDICIAL DEFINITE SENTENCING, THE LEGISLATURE PERMITS MORE JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN THE SELECTION OF A DEFINITE SENTENCE BY ESTABLISHING A STATUTORY MAXIMUM. THE JUDGE MUST IMPOSE A DEFINITE TERM IF HE DECIDES IMPRISONMENT IS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION, BUT THE SENTENCE CANNOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PENALTY. OF THE STATES STUDIED, MAINE IS THE ONLY ONE TO ADOPT SUCH AN APPROACH. THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROACH PROPOSED BY THE MINNESOTA CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITY AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE CALIFORNIA ADULT AUTHORITY NARROWS DISCRETION BY ESTABLISHING DEFINITE PAROLE RELEASE DATES WITHIN SPECIFIED RANGES ACCORDING TO THE OFFENSE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENDER. A DESCRIPTION OF THE STATUS OF THE REGULATIONS FOR THESE THREE APPROACHES PRECEDES A DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE PROPOSALS IN THE STATES STUDIED. TOPICS DISCUSSED INCLUDE WHETHER OR NOT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD FIX DEFINITE TERMS STATUTORILY, WHETHER THE JUDICIARY, PAROLE BOARD, OR BOTH SHOULD MAKE RELEASE DECISIONS, AND THE AMOUNT OF DISCRETIONARY LATITUDE WHICH SHOULD BE POSSESSED BY THE SENTENCING AUTHORITY. ALSO INCLUDED ARE A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF SENTENCING TRENDS, A REVIEW OF SOURCES OF DISCONTENT WITH CONTEMPORARY SENTENCING, POTENTIAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION FACTORS, AND POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS CONNECTED WITH DEFINITE SENTENCING PROPOSALS. THE APPENDIX CONTAINS CHARTED DATA ON THE MAJOR PROVISIONS OF APPROACHES IN THE STATES STUDIED, COMPARISONS OF ACTUAL TIME SERVED FOR THE PROPOSED AND EXISTING SYSTEMS IN ILLINOIS AND MINNESOTA. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED) (SNI ABSTRACT)