Abstract
Sentencing decisions are among the most critical in the criminal justice system. Thev' have obvious consequences for the person convicted, equalli' important implications for the efficiency of criminal law and direct bearing on the structure of the criminal justice system. Current debate about sentencing policy centers on suggestions for system change; change that would affect the entire criminaljustice system.
Recognizing the established fact of sentencing disparities and questioning the rehabilitative orientation of the indeterminate/indefinite sentencing model, social scientists, legal authorities, practitioners and politicians advance a variety ofpolicl' proposals. These proposals build on both substantive and procedural reforms for criminal law and range from the introduction of flat or definite sentencing to modifications of the existing indefinite systems.
This article directs attention to these proposals and assesses the theoretical assumptions about law and government that underlie the different policy proposals. In the course of the analysis, particular attention is directed to the administrative implications for corrections, the organizational implications of different reform schemes and the political and constitutional issues raised in alternative sentencing proposals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
