NCJ Number
53505
Date Published
1978
Length
16 pages
Annotation
FACTORS WHICH LEAD TO SENTENCING DISPARITY ARE EXAMINED AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE MADE. PROBLEMS REVIEWED INCLUDE LACK INFORMATION AT SENTENCING, SENTENCING PROCEDURE, AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE POOR.
Abstract
FOLLOWING AN INTRODUCTORY SECTION, STATING THAT THE PRIMARY PUPOSE OF SENTENCING IS TO ENFORCE SOCIETY'S SANCTIONS AGAINST BEHAVIOR IT DEEMS UNACCEPTABLE, REASONS FOR SENTENCING DISPARITY ARE EXAMINED. THE FOLLOWING SIX MAJOR PROBLEMS CONTRIBUTE TO SENTENCING DISPARITY: (1) LACK OF FACTS AVAILABLE TO THE JUDGE AT TIME OF SENTENCING; (2) LAWS AND CUSTOMS WHICH MAKE THE PRESENTENCE REPORT AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE ONLY AT THE LAST MINUTE OR WHICH REQUIRE THE COURT TO ACT ON INFORMATION WHICH IS LESS THAN SUBSTANTIAL; (3) THE EMPHASIS ON THE OUTCOME OF THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT WITHOUT ASSESSING THE BLAMEWORTHINESS OF THE CONDUCT ITSELF; (4) ANOMALIES RESULTING FROM APPEALS; (5) THE STRUCTURE WHICH MAKES A SENTENCE HEAVIER FOR THOSE WHO ARE POOR, COMBINED WITH IMPRISONMENT FOR THOSE WHO FAIL TO PAY THE FINE; AND (6) OVERRELIANCE ON IMPRISONMENT. THE DISCUSSION POINTS OUT THAT IN AUSTRALIA STRICT RULES OF EVIDENCE SURROUND THE DETERMINATION OF GUILT, BUT THAT NONE OF THESE APPLY TO THE SENTENCING PROCESS. SEVERAL PRACTICES COMMON IN NEW SOUTH WALES ARE CRITICIZED, AND THE LAW IN TASMANIA IS PRAISED. THE PROBLEM OF ASSESSING THE BLAMEWORTHINESS OF THE CONDUCT ITSELF IS ILLUSTRATED. DISCUSSION IS INCLUDED ON THE FACT THAT BOTH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED AND ASSAULT CARRY PENALTIES DEPENDENT UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE ACTION, NOT THE INTENT WHEN ENGAGING IN THE ACTION. IMPRISONMENT FOR FAILURE TO PAY FINES IS CONSIDERED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE POOR. THE USE OF SUSPENDED PRISON SENTENCES AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES IS ALSO URGED. (GLR)