The goal of the indeterminate sentencing during the beginning of the 20th Century was rehabilitation based on the belief
that inmates spent a certain amount of time behind bars to “cure them of their criminal behavior” (Nauman, 2013). Sentencing was individualized where judges exercised discretion by selecting the defendants’ sentence along with a Parole Commission that had the ultimate say over how much time the defendant actually spent in prison (Eskridge, 1990; Simons, 2002; Yellen, 2005; Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 248, 1949). Based on the judge’s discretion, two similarly situated defendants who committed the same crime would receive very different sentences. Even though judges had the discretion of sentencing assigned, the length of the sentence actually served was actually dependent on the discretion of parole boards. (Bowman, 2005) Under the parole board discretion, many prisoners were released earlier than the actual release date based on good behavior, completion of drug treatment programs, or beliefs from the parole board hearing that the prisoner was no longer viewed as a threat to society (Caulkins, 1997; Nauman, 2013).
During the 1960s and 1970s, concerns of how indeterminate sentencing were failing as well as epidemics of drugs and the rise of crime rates began to shape political minds. Researchers and reformers conducted studies on indeterminate sentence and found the sentencing system to be flawed that produced mischief causing high crime rates due to widespread recidivism (Yellen, 2005). This began the focus of reforming the sentencing system with a model of a structured sentencing that provided guidance of the terms of imposing imprisonment.