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: 83264 Find in a Library
Title: Survey of Determinate Sentencing Jurisdictions
Corporate Author: Assoc of Paroling Authorities
Office of the President
United States of America
Date Published: 1982
Page Count: 21
Sponsoring Agency: Assoc of Paroling Authorities
Albany, NY 12203
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This survey of five States that have adopted determinate sentencing legislation considers the old sentencing system, reasons for change, the current sentencing system, preliminary results, and recent developments.
Abstract: The States surveyed were California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, and Maine. California changed from an indeterminate sentencing system based primarily on offender rehabilitation because of sentencing disparities, arbitrary parole decisionmaking, manipulative behavior by inmates and corrections officials in association with release dates dependent on inmate behavior, the undermining of deterrence effectiveness by sentence uncertainty, and the prison tension created by inmate uncertainty about release. The California determinate sentencing law, which became effective on July 1, 1977, provides narrow ranges which judges must follow in sentencing defendants to prison. General results of determinate sentencing in California have been reduction in sentencing disparity and an increase in imprisonment rates and prison crowding. The other States in the survey changed from indeterminate sentencing for some or all of the reasons that California changed. Results in the other States have included an increase in imprisonment rates and prison crowding, increased focus on plea bargaining as the determining factor in the sentence received, and some improvement in sentencing disparity, although Maine has not seen any impact on disparity. It is too early to determine if determinate sentencing has had an impact on the crime rate. Current determinate sentencing systems are presented in a tabular form for four classes of offenses.
Index Term(s): California; Connecticut; Determinate Sentencing; Illinois; Indiana; Maine
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=83264

*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.