Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing

• NCJ Number: 88387
• Author(s): W Wanker
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 28 pages
• Corporate Author: Oregon Legislative Research
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This monograph describes indeterminate and determinate sentencing procedures, presents arguments for and against them, provides information from studies which have examined existing systems, and discusses sentencing procedures that do not fit either determinate or indeterminate sentencing procedures.

Abstract

Indeterminate sentencing procedures are used in all but 17 States. The legislature determines what constitutes a crime and what should be the appropriate punishment, but this is only in the form of general guidelines. Indeterminate sentencing proponents believe that an offender's character and circumstances of each offense are unique and require a sentencing procedure flexible enough to assess these elements. Further, proponents support the indeterminate system becauses it emphasizes offender rehabilitation. Opponents of indeterminate sentencing argue that it is not equitable or just, since it produces unwarranted disparities in sentencing, does not yield sentences to fit offense severity, and coerces offenders to participate in rehabilitation programs. There are three determinate sentencing procedures: (1) discretionary, which establish a narrow sentence range for each offense; (2) presumptive, which establish a single sentence for each crime but often allow discretion for aggravating factors; and (3) mandatory, which allows for no discretion and is primarily used for establishing a minimum sentence or to focus on offenders with prior records. Those favoring determinate sentencing believe that it eliminates disparate and unjust sentences, while opponents argue that it makes sentencing mechanical and insensitive to the unique needs of offenders. Sentencing options that do not fall into the categories of determinate or indeterminate sentencing include appellate review, sentencing boards, sentencing commissions, sentencing councils, sentencing institutes, sentencing guidelines, and contract sentencing. The studies of existing determinate and indeterminate sentencing systems are summarized.