NCJ Number
44899
Journal
State Court Journal Volume: 2 Issue: 1 Dated: (WINTER 1978) Pages: 8-12,41
Date Published
1978
Length
6 pages
Annotation
AN OVERVIEW IS PRESENTED OF ISSUES IN THE DEBATE OVER DETERMINATE VERSUS INDETERMINATE SENTENCING FOR FELONS.
Abstract
THE VARIETY OF PROPOSALS ENCOMPASSED BY THE APPELLATIONS 'DETERMINATE' AND 'INDETERMINATE' IS NOTED, WITH REFERENCE TO VARIATIONS IN DETERMINATE SENTENCING SYSTEMS IN CALIFORNIA, MAINE, AND INDIANA. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT, AS GENERALLY USED, DETERMINATE SENTENCING DOES NOT MEAN MANDATORY SENTENCING, ALTHOUGH THE TWO CONCEPTS ARE NOT UNRELATED. ALLEGED DEFECTS IN INDETERMINATE SENTENCING ARE SUMMARIZED, SUCH AS ADVERSE EFFECTS ON PRISONERS AND THEIR FAMILIES, DEPENDENCE ON THE REHABILITATION MODEL, ARBITRARINESS IN PAROLE BOARD DECISIONMAKING, AND OTHER ISSUES. NEW PROBLEMS LIKELY TO BE POSED BY THE USE OF DETERMINATE SENTENCING ARE DISCUSSED, INCLUDING THOSE RELATED TO STATUTORILY FIXED SENTENCES AND TO THE BASIC CONCEPT OF FLAT-TIME SENTENCING REGARDLESS OF THE DEGREE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION. THE POSSIBILITY THAT OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO INDETERMINATE SENTENCING MAY BE POSSIBLE IS POINTED OUT. ARIZONA'S APPROACH, WHICH INVOLVES A NARROWING OF BOTH JUDICIAL AND PAROLE BOARD DISCRETION, IS CITED. THE NEED FOR CAREFUL EVALUATION PRIOR TO ENACTING RADICALLY ALTERED SENTENCING POLICIES IS NOTED.