For most of the 20th century, judges have had broad discretionary powers in imposing sentences. Criminal statutes generally authorized judges to impose sanctions within a broad range and to determine what factors would be considered mitigating or aggravating. By 1970, indeterminate sentencing had come under attack on the grounds that it discriminated against minorities, resulted in sentencing disparities, and was founded on an empirically unverified belief in the rehabilitative potential of sentences. These attacks on indeterminate sentencing have resulted in such sentencing reforms as the abolition of parole, the establishment of statutory sentencing guidelines, the creation of sentencing commissions with authority to develop guidelines, and the implementation of voluntary sentencing guidelines. These changes have not gone unchallenged. Critics argue that a just-deserts model for sentencing is philosophically unacceptable, that determinate sentences may diminish judicial discretion but increase prosecutorial and correctional discretion, and that such reforms contribute to prison overcrowding. 5 study questions and 7 references.
Sentencing - Crime File Series Study Guide
NCJ Number
100752
Date Published
1986
Length
4 pages
Annotation
This study guide reviews arguments for and against determinate versus indeterminate sentencing practices.
Abstract
Date Published: January 1, 1986