NCJ Number
89112
Journal
University of Florida Law Review Volume: 35 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1983) Pages: 1-40
Date Published
1983
Length
40 pages
Annotation
Sentencing ought to reflect the various goals set for it, and sentencing processes ought to be designed to imbue each decision with the spirit of those goals. Community values and interests should be injected into the retributive aspect of sentencing by using juries in sentencing.
Abstract
Deterrence, rehabilitation (subsuming incapacitation), and retribution are the most frequently advanced sentencing goals. A legislature should adopt the goals of sentencing and then devise a plan that would address the application of each goal and the goals as a whole. Sentences should be set by aggregating subsentences that fulfill various sentencing goals. The deterrence subsentence should be fixed by legislatures and be invariate in application. The trend toward mandatory minimum sentences illustrates the principle. The retributive subsentencing mechanism should be discretionary to take into account extenuating, mitigating, and aggravating circumstances of the crime. Retributive sentencing should be devised locally through the discretion of judges or juries. The ideal rehabilitative subsentence would incapacitate an offender long enough to effect rehabilitation, given the characteristics of the particular offender and available rehabilitation programs. Rehabilitative sentences should be assigned by a centralized agency that would synthesize all program and offender information into a suitable sentence. A maximum release date could restrain parole abuse and the abuses of indeterminate sentencing. Community values should be injected into the retributive subsentence, preferably through the use of juries, with trial judges being empowered to invalidate sentences reflecting overt bias or inflamed passions. A total of 154 footnotes are provided.