NCJ Number
84583
Date Published
1981
Length
23 pages
Annotation
S. 1437, which makes provision for Federal sentencing guidelines while eliminating parole release, would not do as much to reduce sentencing disparity and increase fairness in sentencing as a system that combined sentencing guidelines with provision for parole release.
Abstract
S. 1437 is not likely to produce the intended reduction in sentencing disparity because of (1) probable differences in interpretations of sentencing guidelines by the 550 district court judges, (2) the Sentencing Committee's lack of a means of ensuring compliance by the judges in interpreting its policies, (3) problems with appellate review as a compliance mechanism for judicial guidelines, and (4) contrasting advantages offered by the Parole Commission. The Parole Commission's release review will continue to be important because of (1) the need for review where a sentence is based on a prediction of risk that is no longer valid, (2) changes in societal attitude toward particular offenses, and (3) the tendency to create a hidden parole system through community release placements by prison officials. Further, 'flat time' sentencing will probably lead to prison overcrowding without any flexibility within the corrections systems to deal with it. The preferred approach would be to create a sentencing committee in the Judicial Conference to establish guidelines for sentencing decisions. The Parole Commission would be retained with jurisdiction over the last half of the sentence pursuant to parole release guidelines and the provisions of the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act. Appended are tabular data on the estimated increase in the cost of incarceration by type and length of sentence.