NCJ Number
168355
Journal
Criminal Law Forum Volume: 8 Issue: 1 Dated: (1997) Pages: 1-41
Date Published
1997
Length
41 pages
Annotation
Sentencing reform in the United States is discussed with respect to its origins, nature, current problems, and potential solutions.
Abstract
Three problems led to sentencing reform. The first problem was irrationality in the sense of a lack of an articulable rationale and the conflicting requirements of the four traditional purposes of sentencing: rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, and just punishment. The second problem was sentencing disparity. The third problem is that of deception in the sense that the publicly imposed sentence was not the sentence that the offender served. Sentencing reform began at the State level. Different States tried different approaches, and the Federal reformers learned much from these efforts. The Federal Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 adopted many of the State sentencing strategies while adding new ideas intended to address the issues of truth in sentencing, uniformity, and rationality. However, irrationality continues to be the most serious problem in criminal sentencing. The guidelines rely on mathematical averaging of past sentencing practices. Nevertheless, sentencing reformers need not try to resolve the irresolvable conflict between utility and desert. A fair and effective sentencing system can be constructed that serves both utility and desert; the criminal law should distribute punishment according to principles of perceived desert and should use a system of punishment units and punishment equivalencies. Footnotes