The Impact of Determinate and Indeterminate Sentencing Models on Corrections in the United States

Analyze the impact that various sentencing models have had on corrections. As part of your analysis you must discuss at least two (2) different sentencing models. The Purpose of Sentencing a criminal is to deter others from committing crimes, to incapacitate individuals from continuing to commit offenses, to serve as retribution for the harm done, rehabilitation of an offender, and to restore peace and justice in the community. Once an individual is found guilty of a crime, they enter the sentencing phase in the Criminal Justice System. Depending on the level of the offense a sentence will be handed down from either a judge or a jury. The next step in this process will be the punishment phase, which again will vary depending on the nature of the crime. This short essay will analyze the impact of two of the various sentencing models in today’s world of corrections in the United States. The two models that will be discussed are: Determinate Sentencing and Indeterminate Sentencing.

Determinate Sentencing

Determinate Sentencing is the process of a court assigning a set prison term to a person who is convicted of a crime, not subject to review by a parole board or other agency. This form of sentencing grew popular in the United States within the last 50 years as a rise in desire for a tougher approach on crime grew.

People who stand behind this model of sentencing believe that it is fair and impartial. This ideology is based on the fact that if set sentences for certain crimes are imposed, there is less room for discrimination. Race, religion, or creed is not considered, instead a “one size fits all” approach is taken. Determinate sentencing is reserved primarily for violent felonies, repeat offenders, and drug related crimes. “In theory, the harsher the determinate sentencing happens to be, then the more likely someone is going to choose to follow the law so they don’t have to deal with legal consequences. ”(Determinate Sentencing Pro’s, 2014) Although deterrence is needed to steer some away one from committing a crime, determinate sentencing can have a gravely negative impact on corrections. In November of 1995, Leandro Andrade, a nine year US Army Veteran who struggled with a heroin addiction went to a local Kmart and attempted to steal video tapes but was caught by security guards instead. He was given a double 25 years-to-life in prison sentence under the determinate sentencing model, better known as California’s three strike law. Mr. Andrade had previously committed two felony crimes, and struck out on his third strike with petty theft. Judges not having the right to analyze and calculate circumstances in determinate sentencing can cause a person’s life to be thrown away over petty and non-violent offenses. Aside from these harsh sentences, the impact also causes the prison populations to be increased and over populated. Although America only accounts for about five percent of the world’s population, it is alarmingly responsible for nearly 25% percent of the world’s incarcerated population. In additions to overcrowding, the impacts of determinate sentencing is also extreme financial costs. Some criminal institutions spend nearly 100 thousand dollars annually on one prisoner, exceeding the average annual income of most working households.

Indeterminate Sentencing Indeterminate sentencing is when both maximum and minimum terms of imprisonment are specified by statute and are imposed by the sentencing judge. A positive impact this model of sentencing has on corrections, is that it can give a person a legitimate opportunity for rehabilitation. For example, a person is convicted of a crime and handed down a sentence of two to six years in prison. This person now has the incentive to make a 180 degree turn and correct the error of their ways in hopes of going before a parole board and possibly being released closer to their minimum sentence versus the maximum. This philosophy has the potential to positively impact corrections by decreasing the prison population with early release, subsequently decreasing financial cost. On the contrary, one may argue that this puts too much power in the parole board’s hands. “A related accusation is that minorities and other prisoners who do not network with the right people while in prison will receive decisions from parole boards that are overly harsh. ” This model also gives a judge a wide range of discretion in determining a sentence for a person found guilty of a crime. In 2017, a Stanford University freshman, Brock Turner, was convicted of three counts of sexual assault for raping a woman behind a dumpster of a fraternity house in the wee hours of the morning. The judge presiding over the case gave Turner a six month jail sentence and three years of probation. He stated that he came to this decision by considering the offenders clean criminal record and thought that “harsher punishment would have left a severe impact on him” (Judge Perskey, 2017) Justice across America is seemingly as consistent as the stock market. There does not seem to be a “one size fits all” solution, but our justice system must become more just and consistent in the way it delivers justice.

Conclusion

The various sentencing models in the criminal justice system all serve different purposes and have different impacts on corrections, offenders, and ultimately society. The Determinate Sentencing Model and Indeterminate Sentencing Model share pro’s and con’s having both positive and negative impacts on corrections.