NCJ Number
106238
Journal
New York Affairs Pages: 49-64
Date Published
Unknown
Length
16 pages
Annotation
New York's new law eliminating parole release and sharply limiting judicial discretion in setting sentences is unlikely to make sentencing fairer and may have several unwanted side effects.
Abstract
The law abandons rehabilitation as part of the goal of corrections. Instead, the purposes of imprisonment become punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation. The law resulted from a consensus among liberals and conservatives, who had all lost faith in the parole boards and the courts. Liberals see the law as a solution to the problem of disparate sentences and as an opportunity to control prison populations. Conservatives see it as a way to increase punishments and deterrence. The alliance they forged to pass the law will end during the forthcoming debate on the actual sentencing guidelines to be established. In January 1985, the State Sentencing Guidelines Commission established by the law will report its recommended revisions to the criminal code to the legislature for approval. The legislature will be able to change individual items and is most likely to adopt repressive standards. However, sentencing disparity is unlikely to decrease and may well increase. Several sets of statistics show that disparities are currently much lower than commonly believed. In addition, most convictions now result from plea negotiations. Thus, lawyers as well as judges play an important role in sentencing decisions. The assumptions that sentences are widely disparate and that these disparities result from the broad discretion given judges are therefore unwarranted. Despite the likely increase in the severity of punishment, fiscal constraints may force a future reconsideration of mandatory and fixed prison sentences.