A Comparative Assessment of Determinate Sentencing in the Four Pioneer States

Abstract

Debate over determinate sentencing grips the criminal justice system to day much as discussions about community correction did ten years ago. Advocates of determinate sentencing argue that sentencing disparity among similar offenders who have committed similar offenses will be re duced, that there should be greater certainty in terms of imprisonment, and that offenders will be treated with greater justice. Perhaps determinate sentencing as implemented will fulfill all these hopes, but the optimists among us must recognize that the momentum behind the determinate sen tencing movement can largely be attributed to a loss of faith in the re habilitative ideal; it is not necessarily a sign of the concept's obvious rea sonableness. In examining the nature of the determinate sentencing schemes in the four pioneer states, the authors compare and contrast the provisions for determinacy in each of the revised criminal codes, with the objective of informing legislators, planners, and practitioners about the variation possible within the apparently straightforward guidelines estab lished by determinacy. We note vast differences between the states in the constraints on judges regarding the decision about whether to incarcerate, in the delimitation of judicial discretion in sentencing, in the specificity of aggravating and mitigating factors, in the institutional use of good time, in the range of possible penalties, and in the degree to which determinate sentencing as practiced can look like indeterminate sentencing. It would appear that the speed with which sentencing revisions are being endorsed may well hinder reasoned analysis of the need for reform, the nature of desired reform, and the outcome of reform once implemented.