Sentencing:

1. Sentencing: Once guilt has been determined, the next step is to decide what to do to the offender What should sentencing accomplish? Multiple goals of sentencing are recognized: Retribution(justice & atonement for wrongdoing) Deterrence (psychological prevention of crime) Incapacitation (physical prevention of crime) Reformation/rehabilitation (changing the offender) Restoration/restitution (repairing the harm done) Which goal is most important?

2. What things can be done to offenders? Fines (money or property) Imprisonment Death Probation Work/labor Treatment or counseling Restitution Corporal punishment Loss of citizenship (and rights) Public shaming Exile/banishment

3. Strategies of Sentencing: Determinate vs. Indeterminate sentences Indeterminate: At the time of sentencing, the offender knows only the minimum and the maximum they could receive (a range) Actual sentence length decided by parole board decision Closely linked to rehabilitation of offender Determinate: At the time of sentencing, the offender receives a specific sentence (e.g., 5 years)

4. Strategies of Sentencing: Determinate Sentencing: specific forms Fixed or Flat sentencing: sentence decided by legislature & specified in statutes for each offense (with provision for “good time” reduction) Presumptivesentencing: Legislature specifies a recommended sentence with range of departures available to judge (guideline-restricted) Mandatory sentencing: legislature mandates specific punishment (often no good time)

5. Strategies of Sentencing: What is the difference between “good time” and “parole”? (both = sentence reductions) Standard good time = sentence reductions earned at a fixed rate for good conduct Not a matter of discretionary beneficence But may be reduced for disciplinary actions Parole = a discretionary decision to release early made by the parole board It is a judgmental “act of grace” by parole board It is not owed to the inmate or simply earned Inmate is released into conditional supervision

6. Strategies of Sentencing: Public Perceptions of “good time” and “parole”? They mislead the society or victims regarding how much offenders are actually punished They release dangerous criminals too soon They subvert justice The recent response to issue of “good time” = passage of “Truth-in-Sentencing” laws These dramatically restrict the amount sentences can be reduced by “good time” Generally limited to serious or violent crimes

7. Strategies of Sentencing: What is the correctional purpose of “good time” and “parole” provisions? Encourage or motivate good behavior during incarceration Provide a positive incentive to avoid trouble & “be productive” The alternative = brutalization & very unsafe working conditions for correctional staff Manage prison population levels and avoid over-crowding The down-side of tougher sentencing = larger prison populations & higher prison costs

8. The Process of Sentencing: In principle, sentencing is a separate task from conviction (but some overlap in practice) In felonies (and some misdemeanors), trial and sentencing hearing are separate events Need additional information about offender Need time to deliberate and consider evidence Sentence Hearing to decide punishment Scheduled several weeks after trial Will introduce additional information not presented at the trial or admissible at trial Judicial role depends on statutory structure

9. The Process of Sentencing: Sentence Hearing includes: Pre-sentence Investigation (PSI) report by probation officer May include victim impact evidence & testimony May include character witnesses for defense Seek to identify mitigating and aggravating factors that would lessen or increase sentence Will include prosecutor recommendations May include hearsay evidence May rely on opinions by expert witnesses May include offender’s statement (& apology)

10. The Process of Sentencing: What factors can be considered in deciding the sentence? Depends on legal discretion allowed to judge Mandatory sentencing statutes Statutory sentencing guidelines Legal factors: severity of offense; prior criminal record; use of violence or weapon; influence of collaborators; victims’ characteristics (as specified in law) Extralegal factors: gender, age, race, social class, economic status, personal attributes (not specified in law)

11. The Process of Sentencing: Note important differences between Felony and Misdemeanor sentencing: Misdemeanor sentencing = abbreviated & often collapsed into trial event Felony sentencing = more formalized & extended Limits on period of incarceration & amount of fine Place of incarceration: County Jail for misdemeanors State prison for felonies (with some exceptions) Differences in civil disabilities that go long with the sentence – i.e., loss of citizenship & rights

12. Capital Sentencing as a special issue: Criminal punishment is often viewed by its extremes (rather than by average practices) Death is the most extreme thing we can do to offenders It often is the issue by which people define their stands on criminal justice However, executions are extremely rare events with ambiguous impact on justice practices The importance of the Death Penalty for CJ policy is symbolic rather than actual

13. Capital Punishment: death as a sentence Historical use of the death penalty in the U.S.

14. Capital Punishment: death as a sentence Availability of Death Penalty is variable Comparison of U.S. with other countries Constitutional issues on the death penalty It is unconstitutional: Furman v. Georgia, 1972 It is reestablished: Gregg v. Georgia, 1976 Later decisions re: methods/crimes/offenders? Death Penalty controversies: Method of execution  doing it humanely (applying “evolving standards of decency”) Selection of cases  using it in a non-arbitrary, non-capricious, non-discriminatory fashion

15. Endnote on the inevitable presence of discretion in CJ Processing Discretion in CJ decision-making tends to follow a “Whack-a-Mole” pattern It may be eliminated or reduced at one decision point But it merely shifts and becomes more important at another decision point This often effectively changes who makes the decision It may also reduce how open & explicit the decision-making process is