skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

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: 52031 Find in a Library
Title: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - EQUAL PROTECTION - FEDERAL STATUTES DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SENTENCE CREDIT FOR PROBATION AND PAROLE TIME SATISFY RATIONAL BASIS TEST
Journal: VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW  Volume:31  Issue:3  Dated:(APRIL 1978)  Pages:695-705
Author(s): A W BYRD
Corporate Author: Vanderbilt University
United States of America
Date Published: 1977
Page Count: 11
Sponsoring Agency: Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 37203
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: U.S. VERSUS SHEAD, A CASE IN WHICH A FEDERAL COURT FAILED TO CREDIT TIME SPENT ON PROBATION AGAINST A SENTENCE ISSUED AT A REVOCATION HEARING, IS EXAMINED. THIS DECISION WAS UPHELD.
Abstract: THE DEFENDANT WAS PUT ON PROBATION AND ORDERED TO PARTICIPATE IN A DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM. DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF THE SENTENCE THREE PROBATION VIOLATION WARRANTS WERE ISSUED AGAINST HIM; THE DISTRICT COURT REVOKED PROBATION AND SENTENCED HIM TO 2 YEARS IN PRISON. THE CASE WAS APPEALED ON THE BASIS THAT THE COURT DID NOT GRANT CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED ON PROBATION WHEN FEDERAL STATUTES SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT CREDIT MUST BE GRANTED FOR TIME SPENT ON PAROLE. THE 10TH CIRCUIT COURT UPHELD THE SENTENCE, STATING THAT THE PUROSES OF PROBATION AND PAROLE WERE DIFFERENT. JUDGES REVOKING PROBATION MAY DENY SIMILAR CREDIT TO PROBATIONERS WITHOUT VIOLATING EQUAL PROTECTION PRINCIPLES BECAUSE DENYING CREDIT COMPELS COMPLIANCE WITH PROBATION TERMS. THE BASIS FOR THIS RULING WAS THE RATIONAL BASIS TEST. THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RATIONAL BASIS TEST AND THE STRICT SCRUTINY TEST IN DETERMINING EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW IS EXPLAINED AND APPLICABLE COURT CASES ARE CITED. THE STRICT SCRUTINY TEST HAS DETERMINED THAT EQUAL PROTECTION MUST BE GUARANTEED FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS REGARDLESS OF RACE, ALIENAGE, NATIONALITY, LEGITIMACY OF BIRTH, GENDER, OR SOCIAL CONDITION. BEYOND THIS, THE RATIONAL BASIS TEST IS TRADITIONALLY USED TO DECIDE EQUAL PROTECTION CASES. SUPREME COURT RULINGS IN ASSORTED RATIONAL BASIS CASES ARE REVIEWED. THE APPLICATION OF THIS REASONING TO THE SHEAD CASE IS EXAMINED. THE ARTICLE IS EXTENSIVELY FOOTNOTED. (GLR)
Index Term(s): Equal Protection; Judicial decisions; Parole; Probation; Sentencing/Sanctions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=52031

*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.