NCJ Number
105975
Date Published
1987
Length
19 pages
Annotation
After reviewing the nature of and the portioning of discretion for indeterminate, determinate, mandatory, and guidelines sentencing, this paper describes the structure and implementation of Minnesota's sentencing guidelines.
Abstract
Indeterminate sentencing, which is designed to tailor sentencing to offender rehabilitative needs and responses, gives extensive sentencing discretion to judges, probation officers, and parole boards. Determinate sentencing, which is used primarily to create sentencing uniformity and tailor sentences to offense severity, distributes discretion among the three governmental branches: the legislature, which enacts sentence parameters; the prosecutor, who determines what charge to bring; and the judge, who decides what sentence to impose within the parameters set by the legislature. Mandatory sentencing, which legislatively sets the precise sentence for each offense, practically strips judges and parole boards of discretion and posits the most discretion in the prosecutor, who determines the sentence by deciding which offense is to be charged. Sentencing guidelines generally accompany the determinate sentencing strategy as a means of structuring judicial discretion. The implementation of Minnesota's sentencing guidelines in 1978 has resulted in more property offenders being imprisoned and in greater sentencing uniformity. 16 notes.