Home / Publications / NCJRS Abstract

PUBLICATIONS

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:	70636

Title:	Distribution of Power in Sentencing - A Policy Analysis

Author(s):	M I Zalman

Date Published:	1977

Page Count:	350

Sponsoring Agency:	UMI Dissertation Services Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

Sale Source:	UMI Dissertation Services 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 United States of America

Type:	Thesis/Dissertation

Language:	English

Country:	United States of America

Annotation:	Following an examination of the sentencing processs and its conceptual framework, this study proposes a commission model of sentencing; the model recommends a formal organization to make policy rulings covering discretionary decisions.

Abstract:	A key element in sentencing is the distribution of diffusion of power whereby decisions that determine the actual fate of convicted offenders are made by several persons. The current movement toward determinate sentencing deliberately reduces the power of the patrol authorities but may inadvertently enhance the power of corrections departments or prosecutors. Failure to consider actual sentencing power in making reforms may lead to ineffective changes. Two historical-legal case studies of the distribution of power in Michigan sentencing laws show that sentencing laws are determined as much by overtly political factors as by more rational variables. The first case (People v. Moore) shows how the legislature, supreme court, and consititution acted and were used to affect the distribution of sentencing power. The second (People v. Cummings) examines the power of the Michigan Supreme Court to affect the sentencing structure. The Michigan Supreme Court's unique action of declaring indeterminate sentencing laws unconstitutional was a manifestation of the court's power. Two types of policy analysis of sentencing are undertaken, value analysis and empirical analysis. The analysis is confined to one city (Detroit) and to a narrow range of sentencing problems which focus on the sharing of power. The data show sentencing disparity attributable to different judicial officers and a moderate amount of racial disparity. The proposed sentencing model recommends that all key factors in sentencing be formally organized to make rules to modify the discretionary functions of member agencies. Chapters include extensive footnotes and tables. Approximately 250 references and 115 law cases are cited. (Author abstract modified)

Index Term(s):	Sentencing commissions; Sentencing disparity; Sentencing guidelines; Sentencing reform; Sentencing/Sanctions

Note:	*This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS. State University of New York at Albany - doctoral dissertation



	To cite this abstract, use the following link: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=70636

*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.

PUBLICATIONS

NCJRS Abstract

Find in a Library