NCJ Number
121373
Date Published
1989
Length
332 pages
Annotation
The discretionary power accorded judges in the matter of sentencing results in a loose policy that is subjective, qualitative, and intuitive; it is often difficult to ascertain which aspects of a case should be taken into account and it leads to inconsistent policy.
Abstract
This project consists of three sections: a perspective on a quantitative approach to sentencing policy, an archival study of a legal model of judicial decision making in sentencing, and sentencing policy and numerical guidance as a deliberative process. A numerical solution to the sentencing problem would be achieved when a relationship had been established between objectively defined offenders and offense characteristics and the appropriate sentence. Detailed sentencing statistics would lead to numerical guidelines. A psychological framework is applied to the law in a way that takes legal concepts, thoughts, and expertise seriously. The model used in this research was developed based on legal analyses of sentencing judgement; it was tested by taking 100 cases of burglary that had been determined in the higher courts, construing the case facts in terms of the model, and determining whether this construction was systematically related to the actual sentences imposed; the model's validity was affirmed in two tests. Judicial input was introduced as a small sample of judges produced four scales showing the relationship between various levels on an offense factor and seriousness. They then weighed the offense factors in the assessment of the overall assessment of the cases, demonstrating that the relationship between the facts of the case and its seriousness were coherent. Finally, the judges set sentences appropriate for the various levels of case seriousness. 2 appendixes, index.