Ethics of Mandatory Sentencing (From Ethics, Public Policy, and Criminal Justice, P 219-227, 1982, Frederick Elliston and Norman Bowie, eds. See NCJ-86248)

• NCJ Number: 86260
• Author(s): E L Beardsley
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 9 pages
• Sale Source: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain Publishers, Inc
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Determinate sentences are morally superior to indeterminate sentences, because determinate sentences have greater deterrent power, are more humane, and preserve essential rights of all citizens.

Abstract

The view that the punishment should fit the crime (be proportioned) is well-established and so is the notion that the punishment should be determined by the harm caused by the crime and the degree of intentionality and responsibility (culpability) of the offender. Responsibility for effecting the appropriate fit between punishment, harm, and culpability rests with the legislature. The proportionality of sentences is best achieved when those who enact criminal statutes attach penalties to criminal violations. Given these positions, discretionary sentencing undercuts the principle that the punishment should fit the crime, since the length of the sentence is largely determined by the perceived response of the offender to rehabilitative efforts, instead of the nature of the crime committed. Further, equality of treatment demands that the same crimes should receive the same punishment. Nonuniform sentences can be presumed to violate the proportionality requirement. Since proportionality requires mandatory sentencing, mandatory sentencing will provide uniformity; hence, mandatory sentencing is morally superior to nonmandatory sentencing. Twenty-three notes are listed.