NCJ Number
163807
Journal
Criminal Justice Ethics Volume: 13 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter/Spring 1994) Pages: 31-38
Date Published
1994
Length
8 pages
Annotation
Both custodial and noncustodial punishments entail varying degrees of loss of freedom, and the effect of these punishments also differs.
Abstract
At the sentencing stage, the focus is on the offense and on the application of sentencing principles to the growing range of penal sanctions. During implementation, this focus shifts to dealing with the offender in accordance with overall constraints of the initial sentence. The gradual emergence of implementation tribunals is an indication that the need for specialized judicial supervision of the sentence implementation process is gaining recognition. What needs to be worked out more fully is how implementation tribunals relate to sentence constraints, i.e., how they prioritize offender needs without undermining the sentence itself. One way in which conflict can be minimized is by clearly delineating in advance what the parameters for maneuver will be in the implementation process. Equally important in effective judicial control of the implementation process is the relationship between the implementation tribunal and the enforcement bureaucracy. The existence of variations in degrees of freedom and in constraints imposed by custodial and noncustodial punishments means that attention must be paid to the development of procedures to meet often divergent claims for justice and due process. 42 notes