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: 62875 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: TESTIMONY OF DAVID FOGEL (FROM RESEARCH INTO CRIMINAL SENTENCING, 1978 - SEE NCJ-62872)
Author(s): D FOGEL
Corporate Author: US Congress
House Cmtte on Science and Technology
United States of America
Date Published: 1978
Page Count: 18
Sponsoring Agency: US Congress
Washington, DC 20515
Type: Legislative/Regulatory Material
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: A CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROFESSOR DESCRIBES DETERMINATE SENTENCING STATUTES ADOPTED BY SEVERAL STATES AND CRITICIZES SOME PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION ON SENTENCING REFORM.
Abstract: AFTER REVIEWING OPINIONS CALLING FOR AN END TO INDETERMINATE SENTENCING, THE WITNESS SUMMARIZES THE FOLLOWING POINTS OF CONSENSUS AMONG EXPERTS: (1) SENTENCING CRITERIA SHOULD BE STATUTORILY REQUIRED AND BASED ON CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENDERS AND SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE; (2) SENTENCES SHOULD BE REVIEWABLE; AND (3) SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT SHOULD BE USED ONLY IF SATISFACTORY COMMUNITY-BASED SANCTIONS CANNOT BE FOUND. SEVERAL STATES HAVE INSTITUTED DETERMINATE SENTENCING SYSTEMS, INCLUDING MAINE, ILLINOIS, AND CALIFORNIA. THE BILL CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE HOUSE IGNORES SOME PRINCIPAL ISSUES AND IS CONTRARY TO MANY STATE ACTIVITIES CONCERNING DETERMINATE SENTENCING. THE BILL HAS NO FORCEFUL STATEMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY, BUT HAS MANY PROVISIONS IMPLYING SUPPORT FOR THE REHABILITATION MODEL. IT ALSO ELIMINATES THE PRESUMPTION OF ALTERNATIVES TO IMPRISONMENT THAT HAS BEEN A MAINSTAY OF FEDERAL POLICY. THE SENTENCING COMMISSION PROVISION IS VAGUE, COMPETES WITH THE U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, AND CONFERS EXTRAORDINARY AUTHORITY FOR SETTING GUIDELINES WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL. AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH WOULD BE TO ABOLISH THE PAROLE COMMISSION AND SET LOWER MAXIMUM SENTENCES TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL TIME SERVED FOR A FELONY. POSTINSTITUTIONAL SUPERVISION COULD BE VOLUNTARY AND DIRECTED TOWARD REINTEGRATION. DETERMINATE SENTENCING, MITIGATED ONLY BY THE CONVICT'S LAWFUL BEHAVIOR WHILE INCARCERATED, WILL ENHANCE PUBLIC CREDIBILITY IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND REDUCE PRISON TENSION.
Index Term(s): Alternatives to institutionalization; California; Determinate Sentencing; Illinois; Indeterminate sentences; Maine; Parole board discretion; Sentencing commissions; Sentencing guidelines; State laws
Note: TESTIMONY GIVEN ON MAY 18, 1978
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=62875

*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.