Indeterminate Sentencing

Determinate vs. Indeterminate Sentencing
Sentencing is and has long been a crucial phase within the criminal justice process. Sentencing is what occurs post-conviction following an offender’s guilty plea or a trial by jury in which the offender is found guilty. The philosophy of sentencing is that of punishment for a crime committed. This punishment can include incarceration, rehabilitation, probation, fines, and community service. In order to prevent crime from occurring or re-occurring, a deterrent such as incarceration must exist.
Several different objectives exist in sentencing, including “deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and retribution” (2012). Retribution is a sentencing objective that has proven to be the most effective in
deterring criminal activity. Some criminologists argue that punishment, not rehabilitation, is a more effective means of deterring offenders and reducing crime. The foundation of the retribution objective is that criminal offenders should be held accountable for the crimes they have committed and that the principal function of the criminal justice system should be to ensure that criminals receive what they deserve for the harms they have caused. Nonetheless, when sentencing occurs, the punishment needs to be commensurate with the crime committed and the danger that crime presents to society. Accordingly, some debate whether punishment is always the path to be taken. In some cases, rehabilitation may be more effective to deter future criminal activity by an individual.
For many years the sentencing structure was made up of an indeterminate system that provided a sentencing range for the criminal offense committed.
The sentence imposed typically included incarceration, probation, and fines. Under this scheme, a judge typically will impose a sentencing range rather than a specific time, allowing a parole board to decide when to release the offender. An example of this is when an offender is convicted of homicide and is sentenced to twenty-five years to life. The offender understands that he or she will spend the minimum time of twenty-five years incarcerated but may be required to serve a sentence of up to a maximum of life. The actual amount of time spent after the twenty-five years will depend on the conduct and success in the rehabilitative process of the offender during his or her time
incarcerated.
Indeterminate sentences were meant to rehabilitate offenders while incarcerated. Prison systems provide various rehabilitative programs that offenders are encouraged to attend, in return for which they receive consideration for early release. The state parole board, which is made up of a small panel of individuals, is given the task of establishing a standard for correctional programs of treatment, education and rehabilitation of inmates. Additionally, due to prison overcrowding, state parole boards review offenders’ conduct that has occurred while the offenders are incarcerated within a facility and have the decision power to extend early release for good behavior. Early release was believed to be a process that would save prisons money. Initially, the parole board thought that keeping some offenders out of the prison system and closely monitoring offenders, including performing routine drug testing and visiting with the offenders, would also save public funds. Unfortunately, this tactic resulted in parole officers’ caseloads growing to a level that they were unable to manage. Prison budgets only experienced a true savings when the prison itself or a portion of the prison emptied completely. This saving would not likely occur given the high volume of crime in the country.
An article published by Robert Martinson in the Public Interest concluded that it cannot be demonstrated that rehabilitative correctional programs are effective in rehabilitating offenders. The recidivism rates appeared to be unchanged under the indeterminate sentencing system.
As a result of the failed indeterminate sentencing system, the public demanded reform.
As violent crime continued to rise, the public demanded harsher and more definite sentences. The rehabilitative concept was called into question as to its effectiveness, leading to the birth of the determinate sentencing structure. The determinate sentencing structure is that which gives an offender a fixed term of incarceration. This type of structured sentencing reform can be used to deter potential offenders and incapacitate dangerous offenders. For example, bringing drug paraphernalia into a prison requires a fixed prison sentence of two years. Judges, in such a case, do not have discretion when the statute “determines” what the sentence is to
be.
Although facially this sentencing structure may appear to be appealing as it provides consistency in sentencing, the drawback to the system is that judges are stripped of the discretion to take individual circumstances into consideration when sentencing a convicted offender. For example, an 18-year-old convicted of statutory rape, meaning in most states having intercourse with a person aged 16 or younger, would receive the same sentence for the crime as a 50-year-old, even if the convicted person had just turned 18 and had been dating the “victim”, who was just shy of the age of consent. On the other hand, the sentencing structure avoids inappropriately light sentences, such as those handed down in several recently publicized rape cases.
Both systems have their benefits and detriments. What is required is an educated and balanced judiciary to ensure appropriate sentencing. With such judges on the bench, indeterminate sentencing could be more successful. Removing discretion from sentencing judges sometimes results in harsher sentencing than is appropriate under the circumstances, but certainly the public demands justice and sentences commensurate with the crime committed, so lenient judges will continue to give rise to criticism of the indeterminate sentencing model.