NCJ Number
10170
Date Published
1973
Length
134 pages
Annotation
ANALYSIS OF THE ALMOST UNLIMITED SENTENCING DISCRETION OF JUDGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES IN THE PROCESS.
Abstract
'OUR LAWS CHARACTERISTICALLY LEAVE TO THE SENTENCING JUDGE A RANGE OF CHOICE THAT SHOULD BE UNTHINKABLE IN A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS, NOT OF MEN.' IN THEORY, THIS FREEDOM IS GIVEN SO THAT THE PUNISHMENT MAY BE TAILORED TO THE OFFENDER, IN FACT, THE FREEDOM OFTEN ALLOWS THE PUNISHMENT TO BE TAILORED TO THE JUDGE'S INDIVIDUAL BIAS. THE AUTHOR QUESTIONS WHY THE SENTENCING PROCESS CANNOT BE GOVERNED BY RULES AND STANDARDS, IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE TRIAL PROCESS, IN ORDER TO INSURE UNIFORMITY AND DUE PROCESS FOR THE DEFENDANT. SENTENCING COUNCILS ARE ONE OF THE SUGGESTIONS OFFERED FOR TAKING SOME OF THE SUBJECTIVENESS OUT OF SENTENCING. THIS PROCEDURE, ALREADY IN EXISTENCE IN THREE FEDERAL DISTRICTS, REQUIRES A JUDGE TO CONFER WITH TWO OTHER JUDGES BEFORE PRONOUNCING SENTENCE. THE AUTHOR ALSO RECOMMENDS MAKING ALL SENTENCES SUBJECT TO APPEAL, SO THAT THE APPELLATE COURTS MAY PROCEED TO MAKE LAW FOR THIS TOTALLY UNREGULATED AREA. FINALLY, THE CREATION OF A COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURAL RULES AND STANDARDS IS ADVOCATED. THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO HAVE 'NO CRIME, AND NO PUNISHMENT, EXCEPT AS LAW PRESCRIBES IT.' (SNI ABSTRACT)