Indeterminate Sentencing

Since many inmates return back into our communities, the Reformatory Era helped decrease the impact of imprisonment on long term inmates as see under the Principle of Normalization. This principle explained how conditions of prisoners should correspond as much as possible to the living conditions in the general society. A solution during this era was parole. This gave the offender the opportunity for early release based on their behavior. Offenders were given a minimum and maximum period of incarceration which is also known as indeterminate sentencing. New York adopted indeterminate sentencing during 1876. Since prisoners had indeterminate sentencing, they could be paroled and able to achieve goals that were set to them by their “handler”. Probation soon spread all around the United States giving different approaches to they way criminal justice policies were

Within the past decades, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of heinous crimes committed, causing some of the laws to significantly change. During the 1970s, some dramatic changes occurred when laws shifted from one extreme to another: rehabilitation to retribution. Such circumstances created an additional emphasis on the offense rather than on the offender. During the 1980s, the “get-tough-on-crime” era began; thus, radical changes in laws continued up until the late 1990s. Throughout the period of the Industrial Society, the United States had two bipolar types of punishment: harsh and lenient. Today, the main focus of the Criminal Justice System is about retribution and punishment.

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 established a uniform set of sentencing guidelines that led to a determinate sentencing structure, where sentences for specific offenses are predetermined. Minimum mandatory sentences for certain offenses have also been put in place. In determining what an offender's sentence should be, investigators prepare a presentence investigation report. Sentencing options range from probation, intermediate sanctions (like halfway houses), incarceration in jail (for most misdemeanors), or prisons (for most

Capital punishment: The most serious crimes in most states, generally first-degree murder. The offender could be eligible for the death penalty.

Merritt, N. Fain, Tuner, S. (2006). The author’s show that Oregon maintained an indeterminate criminal sentencing system through the 1980s (pp 5-6). Judges worked within broad penalty ranges set by the legislature to determine appropriate sentences, setting minimum and maximum terms for each defendant on an individual basis, with a parole board with responsible for reviewing the progress of each offender and determining whether, and when, rehabilitation was sufficient to merit release

Congress sought to reform the sentencing system by designing sentencing Guideline rules that were uniformly to control disparity. In order to reform the sentencing system, Congress created the Sentencing Commission in charge of designing a new sentencing system using multiple sources to evaluate the means to control the source of disparity (Bowman, 1996; Fifteen Years of Guidelines, 2004). Once the Guidelines were created and implemented, studies conducted by the Commission reports that it has increased drastically especially for drug offenses due to different adaptations to the Guidelines and the different types of offenses prosecuted in different regions (Fifteen Years of Guidelines, 2004). The variation in sentence lengths is analyzed based on the data evidence shows 73 percent of differences in federal sentence length causing unwarranted disparity (Fifteen Years of Guidelines, 2004). The cause of unwarranted disparity is influenced by policies promulgated by Congress that were supposedly designed to amend the effects of uneven charging and plea-bargaining decisions. With prosecutors in control of determining an offenders sentencing, they can impose several enhancement to depart from the Guidelines to provide leniency. However, such enhancement resulted in sentences disproportional to the appropriate serious of the offense that would be otherwise applied to the case (Fifteen Years of Guidelines, 2004). The Commission reports there is little empirical research in exploring why prosecutors use its discretion to apply enhanced penalties and depart from the Guidelines (Tonry, 1996; Fifteen Years of Guidelines,

Because the attitude toward crime has diminished in volatility, it can now be brought into question whether incarceration is really effectual or cost-effective. While funding is required to build up these rehabilitation programs, in some programs the savings cannot be clearly understood until a few years into the revision.

The truth-in-sentencing law eliminates or restricts inmates from being eligible for parole and receiving good-time credits (Ditton & Wilson, 1999). Through the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 the United States’ Congress authorized funding to build more jails and state prisons (Ditton & Wilson, 1999). In 1998 twenty seven states, as well as, the District of Columbia received incentive grants for meeting the eligibility criteria for their Truth-in-Sentencing programs (Ditton & Wilson, 1999). The last three decades of sentencing reform includes: indeterminate sentencing, determinate sentencing, mandatory minimum sentences, sentencing guidelines, and truth-in-sentencing (Ditton & Wilson, 1999).

The functionality of the criminal justice system can potentially be flawed by the lack of a clear, concise sentencing guidelines. Studies have shown that the circumstances of the offender, their families, as well as the community can be affected by any biased views in sentencing guidelines (Doerner, 2012).

Another example is if two people commit a crime and one person goes to prison while the other only has to do community service is not fair at all. Both people committed the crime by their free will because they chose to commit the crime for their pleasure. Parole uses two strategies to support classicalism. The two strategies that support classicism are indeterminate and determinate sentencing. Indeterminate sentencing the judge enforces a prison term that has both a minimum and maximum sentence. The parole board gets to decide on their release date based on how good the prisoners have been. In this type of strategy, folks who commit the same type of crime might get different sentences. Since indeterminate sentencing was dislike, determinate sentencing was adopted. What is determinate sentencing? Determinate sentencing is a sentence having a specific number of years expected to be in prison. Determinate sentencing promotes good time; ranging 15-50 percent off the sentence to encourage prison discipline. Meaning that if an offender is good while in prison her or she will get out of prison earlier than their original sentencing. There are different models for

Judicial discretion was prevalent over the first half of the last three decades, but has been regulated by legislature since 1984. Discretion by definition is the authorization of deciding as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits (Ntanda, 1999). Indeterminate sentencing, traditionally, has afforded judges considerable discretion over the resolve of criminal sentencing. “While such discretion theoretically allows judges to tailor sentences to the circumstances of individual crimes and criminals, thereby achieving a sort of ex post fairness, it also permits variation in sentences that may not be warranted by the observable facts of the case, reflecting instead the judge’s own preferences” (Miceli, 2008, p.207). The punishment

This belief indicated that if offenders could not be rehabilitated then they should be punished and it was time to get tough on crime. Within a relatively short time parole was attacked and the individual approach of indeterminate sentencing, or release by the authority of a parole board was abolished in 16 states (Rhine, Smith, and Jackson, 1991) and some form of determinate sentencing was adopted in all 50 states (Mackenzie, 2000)].

The reasoning behind these harsher sentences is that “putting people in prison for years or even decades should prevent offenders from re-offending by incapacitating them and/or deterring would-be-offenders from committing crimes” (Wright, 6). The theory of deterrence and the aim of incapacitation are well intended but are not concrete.

The sentencing ritual strongly lends itself to the concept of individualized justice. There are two factors that most judges consider before sentencing a wrongdoer, the seriousness of the crime and if there are any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The Seriousness of the Crime is the primary factor in a judge’s sentencing decision. The more serious the crime is, the harsher the punishment. Every judge has their own method of determining the seriousness of an offense. Most judges will simply consider the “conviction offense”; that’s where they base the sentence on the crime for which the defendant was convicted. Other judges focus on the “real offense” in determining the punishment for a wrongdoer. The “real offense” is based on the actual behavior of the defendant, regardless of the official conviction. Many prosecutors and defense attorneys are opposed to “real offense” procedures because they can render a plea bargain meaningless. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are circumstances surrounding a crime that may prompt a judge to adjust the sentence so that it more accurately reflects the totality of the crime. Mitigating circumstances are circumstances that may justify a lighter sentence and aggravating circumstances are circumstances may justify a harsher sentence. A

Indefinite sentencing is a sentence of imprisonment with no set release date. They are held indefinitely. This is considered a very controversial topic as everybody has different beliefs and opinions about the justice of this. Some percentage of the population believe putting offenders in jail indefinitely is the right step to take while others prefer to bring in the death penalty but some disagree with the whole idea as it is against human right. Indefinite sentencing is costly as keeping an offender costs about $292 per day per person which is $106580 per year. It would be cheaper to do community service or rehabilitate these offenders and Taxpayers would prefer their money used to pay for other things such as school, education facilities, roads etc. rather than on criminals. Despite all this indefinite sentencing should remain because the safety of the community comes before all. The following report shall discuss points for and against and the purpose of indefinite sentencing, as well as this a case study will be presented looking at a real-life situation where indefinite sentencing has been used, the just and unjust outcomes and a discussion on two interviews that had been taken.