skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 97233 Find in a Library
Title: Crime File: Sentencing
Series: NIJ Crime Files
Corporate Author: Police Foundation
United States of America
Date Published: 1984
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Washington, DC 20531
National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
Rockville, MD 20850
Police Foundation
Washington, DC 20036
US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
Washington, DC 20531
Grant Number: 84-IJ-CX-0031
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
Audiovisual Sales
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20850
United States of America
Document: PDF (Study Guide)|Video (28:31)
Format: Video (Online)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This video cassette, number 3 in the Crime File series, portrays three panelists contrasting indeterminate sentencing in Massachusetts, determinate sentencing in Minnesota, and discussing the existence and causes of sentencing disparity, sentencing factors, and racial discrimination in sentencing.
Abstract: Panelist Brian Forst of INSLAW discusses his research on the nature and causes of sentencing disparity. He examined different judges' sentencing for similar crimes and similar offenders. The study involved analyses of actual sentencing and laboratory studies of judges' sentencing decisions for the same case studies. Forst reports finding significant sentencing disparity. He indicates factors in sentencing disparity are judges' differing views of the severity of offenses and differing sentencing philosophies. Panelist Kay Knapp, Director of the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, describes Minnesota's sentencing guideline matrix, whereby judges are given presumptive sentence ranges based on the severity of the offense and the offender's criminal history. Judicial discretion to vary from the guidelines when there are believed to be aggravating or mitigating factors is also explained. Panelist Judge Robert Hallisey of the Massachusetts Superior Court argues for his State's indeterminate sentencing policy, which gives judges complete discretion to decide what factors, as well as the weight given to each, will determine the sentencing decision in a given case. Judge Hallisey indicates that such unbridled discretion is necessary if sentencing is to be individualized for rehabilitation. Forst indicates that leaving judges free to make complex sentencing decisions without uniform guidance causes sentencing disparity. Hallisey responds that individualized sentencing implies disparity. In considering racial discrimination in sentencing, Forst comments that research does not indicate that race per se is a significant factor in sentencing decisions. The panel also discusses which factors are appropriate for consideration in the sentencing decision.
Index Term(s): Determinate Sentencing; Indeterminate sentences; Judicial discretion; Massachusetts; Minnesota; Racial discrimination; Sentencing disparity; Sentencing factors; Sentencing guidelines; Videotapes
Note: Videocassette (3/4 inch, Beta, and VHS), 28 minutes in length, color.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.