NCJ Number
49190
Journal
CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY WEEKLY REPORT Volume: 36 Issue: 28 Dated: (JULY 15, 1978) Pages: 1807-1808,1810-1814
Date Published
1978
Length
7 pages
Annotation
PROPOSED CHANGES IN SENTENCING PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES IN THE CRIMINAL CODE REFORM ACT OF 1978 (S#1437), DESIGNED TO REDUCE SENTENCING DISPARITIES, ARE OUTLINED.
Abstract
ALTHOUGH THE SENTENCING PROVISIONS CONSTITUTE ONLY 30 PAGES IN THE 682-PAGE SENATE BILL, THEY CONSTITUTE A MAJOR LEGISLATIVE REFORM. ALTHOUGH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE SENATE WERE LARGELY CONVINCED OF THE PRACTICALITY OF THE PROPOSED SENTENCING MODEL, THE BILL HAS COME UNDER SUBSTANTIAL SCRUTINY IN THE HOUSE DEBATES. S 1437 PROPOSES A COMPLETE RESTRUCTURING OF THE CRIMINAL SENTENCING SYSTEM THAT WOULD VIRTUALLY INSTALL DETERMINATE SENTENCES. THE NEW SEVEN-MEMBER SENTENCING COMMISSION WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESEARCHING CURRENT SENTENCING PRACTICES AND FOR ESTABLISHING GUIDELINE SENTENCING RANGES WITHIN EACH STATUTORY CATEGORY BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CRIME AND CERTAIN GENERAL OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS. WHILE A JUDGE WOULD STILL BE PERMITTED DISCRETION IN SENTENCING OUTSIDE THIS RANGE, REASONS FOR GOING OUTSIDE THE RANGE WOULD HAVE TO BE STATED, AND THE SENTENCE COULD BE APPEALED BY THE DEFENDANT OR THE GOVERNMENT. OPPONENTS CONTEND THAT THIS WOULD RESULT IN LESS INDIVIDUALIZED JUSTICE, WHILE PROPONENTS HOLD THAT GUIDELINES WOULD ENSURE GREATER FAIRNESS. GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING WHEN PAROLE BEGINS IN A SENTENCE WOULD BE ESTABLISHED BY THE U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION. PAROLE AND GOOD TIME CREDITS WOULD BE ALL BUT ELIMINATED TO ACHIEVE MORE DETERMINATE SENTENCES. CRITICS SUGGEST THAT THIS WOULD CAUSE DIFFICULTIES FOR JUDGES EXPECTED TO CONFORM WITH GUIDELINES AND WOULD ALSO DANGEROUSLY CURTAIL THE JUDGE'S ABILITY TO REVIEW A SENTENCE. CONSIDERABLE CONTROVERSY HAS ALSO SURROUNDED THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO APPEAL SENTENCING DECISIONS; IT IS CONTENDED THAT IT COULD RESULT IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN CASES IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS HARSHER SENTENCES. HOWEVER, S 1437 DOES NOT CALL FOR A RETRIAL OR A RECONVICTION, AND THE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL WOULD BE FAILURE TO CONFORM TO GUIDELINES, NOT NEW INFORMATION ON THE DEFENDANT. ANOTHER ISSUE IS THAT LIMITATIONS ON JUDICIAL DISCRETION WILL GREATLY INCREASE PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETIONARY POWERS, RESULTING IN DISPARITIES UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE DEFENDANT'S ADVERSARIES RATHER THAN UNDER THE CONTROL OF A NEUTRAL JUDGE POSSESSING MORE COMPREHENSIVE FACTUAL INFORMATION ON WHICH TO BASE A DECISION. SUPPORTERS INSIST THAT IT WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE JUDGE TO SEE THAT SUCH DISPARITIES DO NOT OCCUR. FINALLY, OPPONENTS SUGGEST THAT PRISON SENTENCES WILL INCREASE IN LENGTH AND THAT THE PRISON POPULATION WILL ALSO INCREASE. SUPPORTERS CONTEND THAT SUCH CONSIDERATIONS WILL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE SENTENCING COMMISSION GUIDELINES.