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: 170745 Find in a Library
Title: Discretion, Disparity, and Discrimination in Sentencing: Where Have All the Critics Gone?
Journal: Judges' Journal  Volume:35  Issue:3  Dated:(Summer 1996)  Pages:2-6,8-9
Author(s): P L Griset
Date Published: 1996
Page Count: 7
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Postconviction administrative sentencing discretion has flourished in New York because prison officials have assumed vast new powers over inmate sentences with no concomitant diminution of parole official sentencing powers.
Abstract: New York embraced sentencing discretion in the 1950s in accordance with the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code. Sentencing discretion was attacked by critics in the 1970s who focused primarily on postconviction administrators. The New York Legislature responded to calls to limit administrative sentencing discretion by passing the Parole Reform Act of 1977. This act required written parole guidelines for exercising release discretion. Passage of this act, however, did not stop the determinate sentencing movement. While interest in determinate sentencing remained strong throughout the late 1970s and early 1980s, concrete steps were taken in 1983 to end sentencing discretion. Even so, New York's Committee on Sentencing Guidelines faced great difficulty in transforming vague concepts of determinate sentencing into specific statutory provisions, partially because its members held very different views on the appropriateness of judicial and postconviction administrative sentencing discretion. Enacted in 1987, New York's shock incarceration program allows prison officials to dramatically reduce judicially-imposed minimum sentences. Judges cannot sentence offenders to shock incarceration; rather, the selection is made by correctional officials who administer the program without review or oversight. The New York Legislature has also introduced presumptive parole under the name of earned eligibility. Earned eligibility does not undercut the State's mandatory minimum sentencing structure but lessens the overall average time served in New York prisons by increasing the parole release rate at first eligibility. In addition, New York has a work release program that has been used as a population control mechanism since 1990. Under the day reporting program, participants have not yet served their mandatory minimum sentences but live at home while under correctional custody. New York policymakers have ceded a great deal of control over sentencing to corrections because of strong public pressure to control the growth of prison populations in the late 1980s and early 1990s. 44 references
Main Term(s): Court procedures
Index Term(s): Corrections policies; Day reporting centers; Determinate Sentencing; Early release programs; History of corrections; Judicial discretion; Mandatory Sentencing; New York; Parole board discretion; Parole effectiveness; Presumptive sentences; Prison overcrowding; Probation or parole decisionmaking; Program budgeting; Sentencing guidelines; State laws; Work release
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.