Criminal Justice System: Indeterminate Sentencing

In recent decades, we have seen what some researchers have marked as a rapid change in sentencing processes and their structure. In our criminal justice system, we can identify 3 sentencing systems. Those would be indeterminate sentencing, determinate sentencing, and structured sentencing with sentencing guidelines. Each system has a particular way of dealing with how to delegate punishment. It is also argued which system is more beneficial to the offender, the victim and community, as well as in terms of recidivism. Those arguments and concerns are what has led to the rapid restructuring of the systems themselves and how they are implemented. There are a few factors that have led to this change. There is the idea that the rehabilitation aspect

Recently we have seen a rapid shift from indeterminate sentencing, to determinate sentencing. The name alone defines the idea behind determinate sentencing. A defined and definite length of punishment is established, rather than an open window with a minimum and maximum limit. Judges and prosecutors also use sentencing guidelines which almost resembles a grid to determine a sentence for an offender. This takes into account crime severity and previous criminal history (Allen et al, 2016, p. 68). This type of sentence structure severely limits the judge and prosecutor's discretion when it comes to sentencing offenders. This leads to another factor that has caused this rapid change in sentencing structures and practices. Judges, prosecutors, and parole boards were being accused of abusing their discretion which would ultimately infringe on offender's individual rights (Allen et al, 2016, p. 68). It was very difficult to challenge sentencing decisions, as these entities were immune from reviews. Then official inquiries and court orders on decisions revealed that there were inconsistencies in their discretion when it came to handing down punishments. This led to increased expectations of accountability when it came to the use of

This is a type of unfair and unequal treatment that is said to be unexplained in emergence. It results from inconsistent determination of punishments and it also disproportionate to minorities. Researchers have also proposed that disparity is prevalent between classes. Basically, this means that individuals committing the same crimes under the same circumstances are being punished differently based on their race and class (Allen et al, 2016, p. 63). In a textbook from a previous class, the ethics behind sentencing and sentencing disparity were discussed. In a study done in 2014, the rate that white men were incarcerated in the United States was 466 per 100,000 people. The figure changed slightly when figuring Hispanic men incarcerated at 1,130 per 100,000 people. The number then doubled when the figure for African American males incarcerated at 2,791 per 100,000 people (Pollock, 2014, p. 333). In an effort to decrease the sentencing disparity, determinate sentencing and sentencing guidelines were strictly used, as well as the emergence of the three strikes rule in different states. With the sentencing guideline, as previously discussed, every offender's punishment is contingent on the severity of the crime and the criminal history of the offender. This limitation in judicial discretion is believed to be the key to reducing the sentencing disparity