U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Determinate vs Indeterminate Sentencing - A Second Look

NCJ Number
97068
Journal
Prison Journal Volume: 64 Issue: 2 Dated: (Fall-Winter 1984) Pages: 132-136
Author(s)
W G Nagel
Date Published
1984
Length
5 pages
Annotation
From a utilitarian viewpoint, the move to determinate sentences has not brought more equity in sentencing, less inmate misconduct, and fewer prisoners.
Abstract
A great amount of sentencing disparity derives less from the differing philosophies and practices of judges than from the charging and plea bargaining that occur outside the courtroom. It is undesirable and unjust to reduce the calculus of sentence options to the narrow and often mandated limits of determinate sentencing. Rehabilitation should be emphasized over punishment. Many prisoners are the products of deprivation, brutality, abuse, and punishment. Furthermore, parole should not be abandoned. It is not a major factor in prison control. However, it remains a tried and tested method of reducing prison populations in times of overcrowding. States which have enacted determinate sentencing laws have seen a greater increase in prison population than other States, although no changes in crime rates have occurred. In addition, States with determinate sentences have seen an increase in inmate misbehavior. From a philosophic point of view, this Nation should aspire to much more from justice that mere vengeance or punishment. It should covet restorative qualities such as individualization, reconciliation, mercy, forgiveness, and fairness.