NCJ Number: 97233
Title: Crime File: Sentencing
Series: NIJ Crime Files
Corporate Author: Police Foundation
Date Published: 1984
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Grant Number: 84-IJ-CX-0031
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
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: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=97233
. A title search of
WorldCat, the world's largest library network, will start when you click
"Continue." Here you will be able to learn if libraries in your community have the document you need. The results will open in a new browser and your NCJRS session will remain
active for 30 minutes. Learn More.
