The purpose of sentencing is to give convicted offenders their "just desserts" and simultaneously provide the community with a sense of justice. In assessing sanctions, judges often have little data to support other than traditional sentencing models. Use of the Criminological Case Evaluation and Sentencing Recommendation provides the judiciary with in-depth background information and offers creative sentencing options. This procedure allows expanded remedial and rehabilitation efforts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brown, B. (1977). Community Service as a Condition of Probation, Federal Probation, 41, No. 4, p. 7-7.
2.
California Penal Code 1203.1 (1979).
3.
California Penal Code 1204 (1979).
4.
Cooper, U.S. v. Unterman: The Role of Counsel at Sentencing , 13 CrimLBul, 101, 113 (1977).
5.
Granelli, J. (1983). Presentence Reports Go Private, The National Law Journal, Vol. 5, No. 35, May 2, p. 1-1.
6.
Gitchoff, G. (1976). CCE-SR Offers Rehabilitation Breakthrough, Criminal Defense, pp. 11-12 (November).
7.
Gitchoff, G. (1980). Proof of Facts, Vol. 21, Bancroft, Whitney Co. (1980).
8.
Jenkins, J. (1974). Creative Sentencing, TWA Ambassador, January, p. 16-16.
9.
National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Corrections (1973) Std. 5.2, 150-153.
10.
People v. Miller , (1968-69) Use of Restitution in the Criminal Justice Process, UCLA Law Review, Vol. 16, 456-456.
11.
People v. Surplice, (1962) 203 CalApp. 784, 21 Cal Rptr. 826
12.
People v. Valdivia, (1960) 182 Cal pp. 2nd 145, 5 Cal Rptr. 832.
13.
Reiner, L. (1977). Criminologist for the Defense, Human Behavior,57 (Dec).
14.
Taylor, G. (1986). A Judge With Unique Ideas on Sentencing, The National Law Journal, No. 43, p. 6-6.
15.
Taylor, G. (1978). Fitting Justice? Judges Try Creative Sentences, Time, April 24, p. 56-56.
