skip navigation
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Login | Subscribe/Register | Manage Account | Shopping Cartshopping cart icon | Help | Contact Us | Home     
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
  Advanced Search
Search Help
     
| | | | |
place holder
Administered by the Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Seal National Criminal Justice Reference Service National Criminal Justice Reference Service Office of Justice Programs Seal National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Topics
A-Z Topics
Corrections
Courts
Crime
Crime Prevention
Drugs
Justice System
Juvenile Justice
Law Enforcement
Victims
Left Nav Bottom Line
Home / NCJRS Abstract

Publications
 

NCJRS Abstract


The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
 
NCJ Number: NCJ 083264  
Title: Survey of Determinate Sentencing Jurisdictions
Corporate Author: Assoc of Paroling Authorities
Office of the President
United States
Publication Date: 1982
Pages: 21
Origin: United States
Language: English
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): Determinate sentences ; Illinois ; Indiana ; Maine ; California ; Connecticut
 
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 web site is provided.


Contact Us | Feedback | Site Map
Freedom of Information Act | Privacy Statement | Legal Policies and Disclaimers | USA.gov

U.S. Department of Justice | Office of Justice Programs | Office of National Drug Control Policy

place holder