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: 154529 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Perspectives on Sentencing
Journal: Intergovernmental Perspective  Volume:19  Issue:2  Dated:(Spring 1993)  Pages:14-17
Author(s): V L Broderick
Date Published: 1993
Page Count: 4
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America

NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Type: Survey
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: When appropriately used as part of the criminal justice process, sentencing deters and even prevents crime; sentencing should not be used, however, as a substitute for crucial crime prevention measures.
Abstract: Disparities between sentences imposed by different judges may create an impression of inequity. While unwarranted disparity should be avoided, every criminal case is different and every defendant is unique. Sentence disparities are often warranted to account for factual differences in circumstances between cases. The importance of individualized sentencing versus mandatory minimum sentencing is beginning to receive renewed attention. In addition, selective rather than automatic use of imprisonment is critical to the effectiveness of sentencing as an anticrime measure. In some instances, deferring sentence pending rehabilitation efforts may create a meaningful incentive for defendants to avoid further crime. Some cases may be removed from the serious category by courts, prosecutors, or the police at an early stage and granted the equivalent of station house or precinct probation. The role of plea bargaining in the sentencing process is discussed, and the need to evaluate sentencing in relation to the criminal justice system as a whole is emphasized. 12 notes
Main Term(s): Courts
Index Term(s): Criminology; Incarceration; Mandatory Sentencing; Plea negotiations; Sentence effectiveness; Sentencing disparity
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.