NCJ Number
56977
Journal
Judicature Volume: 59 Issue: 4 Dated: (NOVEMBER 1975) Pages: 184-191
Date Published
1975
Length
8 pages
Annotation
THE AMERICAN JUDICATURE SOCIETY SURVEYED CHIEF JUSTICES IN THE 50 STATES TO ASSESS ATTITUDES AND FEELINGS ABOUT WHETHER JUDGES SHOULD GIVE REASONS FOR CRIMINAL SENTENCES THEY IMPOSE THROUGH JUDICIAL DISCRETION.
Abstract
THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND GOALS HAVE ADOPTED STANDARDS RECOMMENDING THAT TRIAL COURT JUDGES GIVE SOME STATEMENT OF REASONS REGARDING CRIMINAL SENTENCES IMPOSED BY THEM. THERE HAS BEEN LITTLE MOVEMENT, HOWEVER, TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED STANDARDS. IN THE AMERICAN JUDICATURE SOCIETY'S SURVEY, THREE STATES (ALASKA, MAINE, AND WISCONSIN) INDICATED THAT SENTENCING JUDGES ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE REASONS FOR IMPOSING A PARTICULAR SENTENCE AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING. IMPRESSIONISTIC RESPONSES FROM THESE STATES REVEALED THAT REASONS WERE STATED FOR THE BENEFIT OF PAROLE BOARDS AND FOR APELLATE REVIEW, PAROLE, PARDON, AND PROBATION PURPOSES. OF 42 RESPONDING JURISDICTIONS, 10 JUSTICES HAD NO OPINION REGARDING THE ISSUE. THERE WERE BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE RESPONSES TO WHETHER REQUIRING TRIAL COURT JUDGES TO STATE REASONS FOR IMPOSING SENTENCES WOULD IMPROVE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. WHEN RESPONDENTS WERE ASKED IF REQUIRING SENTENCING OPINIONS OF TRIAL COURT JUDGES COUPLED WITH THE REVIEW OF LEGAL BUT EXCESSIVE SENTENCES WOULD (A) REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OR (B) REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT ON SENTENCE APPEALS, 31 RESPONDED NEGATIVELY TO THE FIRST PART OF THE QUESTION. A SMALL SURVEY OF FIVE STATES (CONNECTICUT, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, AND MONTANA) WAS CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE WHAT CHIEF JUSTICES OF SENTENCE REVIEW PANELS THOUGHT ABOUT THE OPERATION, EFFECTIVENESS, AND COMPARATIVE MERITS OF THEIR PANELS. MOST OF THESE STATES BELIEVED SENTENCING REVIEW PANELS ARE ADVANTAGEOUS BUT DID NOT FEEL THEIR PANELS HAD HELPED TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINES OR CRITERIA FOR USE IN SENTENCING. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE TWO STATES INDICATING THAT THEIR PANELS HAD HELPED TO REDUCE UNEXPLAINED DISPARITY IN SENTENCING WERE THE SAME TWO STATES WHERE PANELS WROTE OPINIONS THAT WERE PUBLISHED AND MADE AVAILABLE TO OTHER TRIAL COURT JUDGES. THE SENTENCING REVIEW PANEL IS SEEN AS A SATISFACTORY ALTERNATIVE TO THE APPELLATE REVIEW OF SENTENCES. CASE LAW IS CITED. (DEP)