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: 77853 Find in a Library
Title: Definition of Punishment for Implementing the Double Jeopardy Clause's Multiple-Punishment Prohibition
Journal: Yale Law Journal  Volume:90  Issue:3  Dated:(January 1981)  Pages:632-656
Author(s): R G Lehouck
Date Published: 1981
Page Count: 25
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article proposes a new definition of punishment for implementing the ban on multiple punishment and applies the definition to the punishment of probation, a practice frequently challenged on double jeopardy grounds.
Abstract: The double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment provides that no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. The multiple punishment prohibition doctrine is an integral part of the double jeopardy clause's retrial restrictions. The courts have implemented the double jeopardy clause's principles of fairness and finality in punishment by imposing three general limitations on sentencing authorities. The sentencing court must take full account of all separate punishments imposed for a single offense. In addition, the defendant's punishment may not be increased after he begins to serve the sentence. Finally, the multiple punishment doctrine prohibits the sentencing court from imposing a punishment not authorized by the legislature. It is suggested herein that the courts have adopted too narrow a definition of punishment, finding a practice punitive only if it is imposed with the intention of punishing the offender. The double jeopardy clause requires a broader definition of punishment, one that focuses on the effect that the practice has upon the offender. By adopting an effects test, courts would bring within the multiple punishment doctrine several sanctions, such as probation, that have previously been considered nonpunitive. Thus, when a probationer is sent to prison for violation of probation conditions, the sentencing authority would take full account of the time served on the probationary term. The article includes 108 footnotes.
Index Term(s): Law reform; Multiple sentences; Probation; Punishment; Right against double jeopardy; Sentencing/Sanctions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=77853

*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.