Pros And Cons Of Indeterminate Sentencing

1049 Words3 Pages

For decades, judges in the United States have utilized indeterminate sentencing. Schmalleger defines indeterminate sentences as “a relatively unspecific term of incarceration stated as a minimum and maximum amount of tie to be served” (Schmalleger p. 467). Indeterminate sentences are given in ranges such as two to five years or twenty-five year maximum. The offender will serve no less than the minimum allotted time but will be released once they have reached the maximum time of their sentence. In this case, the offender will serve at least two years in prison but are to be released once they have reached after serving five years. The goal of the indeterminate sentencing style was to get offenders to earn their release time by exhibiting good behavior while incarcerated. The release of the offender was dependent upon their conduct while behind bars and if they were deemed rehabilitated or not. The release dates are determined by a review conducted by the parole board. If it is believed that an offender had …show more content…

467). In other words, two criminals that commit the same crime should get the same punishment, regardless of their personal backgrounds. Extralegal factors should not in any way influence the decisions made concerning sentencing. Schmalleger provides an example of how cases in an otherwise neutral law can unintentionally have unequal application for sentencing decisions. It was discovered that there was a disproportionate amount of African Americans convicted to longer for possession and use of crack cocaine compared to those who were Caucasian (Schmalleger p. 468). Congress and President Obama addressed this issue by passing the Sentencing Fairness Act of 2010 which changed the relative punishments for the quantities of each (Schmalleger

Open Document