NCJ Number
58556
Journal
Connecticut Law Review Volume: 10 Issue: 1 Dated: (1977) Pages: 5-89
Date Published
1977
Length
84 pages
Annotation
AN ATTEMPTED EVALUATION OF THE CONNECTICUT SENTENCE REVIEW DIVISION (SRD) NOTES MAJOR PROBLEMS IN MAKING SUCH A STUDY, BUT CONCLUDES THAT SENTENCE DISPARITY CONTINUES TO EXIST AND DISCUSSES POSSIBLE REMEDIES.
Abstract
A STUDY ATTEMPTED TO EVALUATE THE NEED FOR AND EFFECTIVENESS OR APPROPRIATENESS OF THE SRD AS A TRIBUNAL TO CORRECT SENTENCE DISPARITIES. THE INITIAL DESIGN INVOLVED COMPARISON OF A SAMPLE GROUP OF SRD APPLICANTS IN 1972 WITH A CONTROL GROUP OF NONAPPLICANTS AND WITH COMPARABLE RESEARCH POPULATIONS FOR THE YEAR 1962 AND 1967. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE VARIABLE TO-SAMPLE-SIZE RATIO WAS MUCH TOO LARGE FOR THE PROBLEM, AND MORE SIGNIFICANTLY THAT THERE WERE MAJOR CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS IN THE LACK OF DEFINITIONS OF SENTENCE DISPARITY, CRITICAL VARIABLES INFLUENCING SENTENCING DECISIONS, AND DISTORTION FROM PLEA BARGAINING. THEREFORE, THE STUDY WAS RESTRUCTURED. A COMPARISON OF THE 157 APPLICANTS AND 225 CONTROL GROUP NONAPPLICANTS IN 1972 SHOWS THAT APPLICANTS HAD RECEIVED, ON THE AVERAGE, SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE SENTENCES THAN NONAPPLICANTS. OF THE FEW CASES IN WHICH APPLICANTS RECEIVED SENTENCE REDUCTIONS, THE SRD REDUCED ONLY A FEW GROSSLY EXCESSIVE SENTENCES. AT NO POINT DID IT ADDRESS THE SENTENCE DISPARITY IN THE SENSE OF COMPARATIVE DISPROPORTIONALITY, AS IN THE IMPOSING OF SENTENCES OF 1, 2, OR 3 YEARS FOR OTHERWISE SIMILAR CONVICTIONS WITH SIMILAR HISTORIES. INSTITUTIONAL REASONS FOR THIS ARE DISCUSSED, AND IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THEY BE OVERCOME IN ORDER TO RECOGNIZE COMPARATIVE DISPROPORTIONALITY AS AN OBJECTIVE MEASURE OF SENTENCE DISPARITY IN CONNECTICUT. IT APPEARS AS IF INSTITUTIONAL WEAKNESSES HAVE BEEN COVERED OVER BY A REFUSAL TO DEAL WITH SENTENCE DISPARITY UNLESS THAT DISPARITY EXCEEDS A HIGH THRESHOLD. THAT THRESHOLD IS NOT MET BY DIFFERENCES OF 1 OR 2 YEARS, WHICH REPRESENT SUBSTANTIAL PROPORTIONAL DISPARITIES IN SENTENCES UP TO 5 YEARS. RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE FURTHER RESEARCH AND VERIFICATION OF PROPORTIONAL DISPARITY, PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCING, MONITORING PLEA BARGAINING, AND STRENGTHENING THE AUTONOMY OF THE SRD. TABLES AND APPENDIXES ARE INCLUDED. (TWB)