NCJ Number
59378
Date Published
1979
Length
19 pages
Annotation
THE CONCEPTS OF THE REHABILITATIVE IDEAL ARE COMPARED AND CONTRASTED WITH THE GROWING INTEREST IN DETERMINATE SENTENCING; DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DETERMINACY IN THEORY AND IN PRACTICE ARE HIGHLIGHTED.
Abstract
IN LIGHT OF INCREASING RECIDIVISM RATES, A MOVE TOWARD DETERMINATE SENTENCING HAS OCCURRED IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM DEBATE. THE MOST CRUCIAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DETERMINATE SENTENCING CODES IS THE DEMISE OF THE REHABILITATIVE IDEAL. RESULTS OF SEVERAL INVESTIGATIONS HAVE LED SCHOLARS TO CONCLUDE THAT REHABILITATION HAS FAILED AND MUST BE ABANDONED. THE REHABILITATIVE IDEAL HOLDS THAT WHEN AN OFFENDER HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIMINAL ACT, THE WELFARE OF SOCIETY AND OF THE OFFENDER IS OF CONCERN, AND THAT BOTH COULD BE SERVED BEST IF THE SANCTION RECEIVED BY THE OFFENDER COULD BE INFORMED BY A STUDY OF THE OFFENDER'S NEEDS. UNDER DETERMINATE SENTENCING, ALL PENALTIES MUST BE COMMENSURATE WITH THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE. NO DEVIATION WOULD BE PERMITTED FOR SUCH ENDS AS INCAPACITATION OR REHABILITATION. THE GOALS OF DETERMINATE SENTENCING, IN THEORY, ARE TO SENTENCE ON THE BASIS OF PAST RATHER THAN FUTURE BEHAVIOR, TO ELIMINATE DISPARITY OF SENTENCING, TO LIMIT JUDICIAL DISCRETION, AND TO ENSURE JUST SENTENCES. IN PRACTICE, HOWEVER, CURRENT DETERMINATE SENTENCING CODES IN FIVE JURISDICTIONS DO LITTLE TO MODIFY JUDICIAL DISCRETION OR SENTENCING DISPARITY. THE PROPORTIONALITY BETWEEN CRIME SEVERITY AND SEVERITY OF SENTENCE IS OFTEN POOR, AND THE LENGTHS OF SENTENCES POSSIBLE UNDER THESE CODES ARE NOT FAIR IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE. THE REHABILITATIVE IDEAL SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETELY ELIMINATED; THE IDEALS OF INDIVIDUALIZED JUSTICE SHOULD BE RETAINED WHILE MODIFYING CERTAIN PROCEDURES TO REMOVE ARBITRARY DISCRETION. AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE PRESENT SYSTEM WOULD BE IMPLEMENTATION OF PAROLE GUIDELINES; DETERMINATE SENTENCING WOULD MERELY CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT WOULD SOLVE. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED.