It is a natural corollary of criminal justice that if there is a crime, inevitably there will be a punishment. The idea of punishing a person for a crime is thought to be necessary for a number of reasons including retribution for the victim, deterrence to potential criminals, incapacitation of the convict, and rehabilitation of a convict in the hopes that he will refuse to commit the crime again. Punishment is usually imposed through a sentence or an official decree by a court allowing the state to take action against an individual found to be guilty (LII, n.d.). Since sentencing is linked to punishment, over the course of its use, there have developed a number of sentencing philosophies and models that relate back to one of the underlying reasons that punishment is imposed on those that commit crime.
During most of the last century, for example, the indeterminate sentencing philosophy or model was commonly used across the United States. Under an indeterminate sentencing scheme, the legislature would set a maximum punishment for a specific criminal activity but does not set exact terms or details of how a person convicted of a crime should be punished. This gave a sentencing judge discretion to determine a maximum sentence based on the individual facts of the case. Correctional facilities also had discretion to adjust down the sentence imposed by the judge depending on a number of factors such as if the convict was a model inmate (Mackenzie, 2001). The punishment idea behind indeterminate sentencing was rehabilitation or the idea that if a convict show that he has changed, he should be afforded flexibility in his punishment.
Since the 1970s, however, indeterminate sentencing has become less and less of an option. To be sure, changes in society’s beliefs of what punishment is meant to accomplish have had drastic effects on the sentencing philosophies and models that have become popular. For example, concerns about the disparate sentences imposed on two different people for the same crime produces calls for more determinate sentencing where the legislature determined the length a term of imprisonment for a particular crime based on guidelines that “considered only the offender’s current and past criminal activity” (Mackenzie, 2001). Determinate sentencing focused on deterrence and incapacitation. It also worked to limit the discretion exercised by judges and correction facilities. Furthermore, the fear of spreading crime, ultra-violent youth, and drugs led to the development of mandatory minimum sentences which, as the name implies, set a mandatory minimum sentence length for a particular crime. While judges could in theory impose a higher penalty, they by law, could not set a lower one without out a justifiable reason. By the 1990, every state had “adopted some type of mandatory minimum sentencing law” (Mackenzie, 2001). These were perceived to be necessary to incapacitate the most serious offenders.
Taking into consideration the various sentencing philosophies and models that have developed over the last 50 years, the one that has had the most impact on the way correctional facilities administer punishment has to be mandatory minimum sentencing law. First, the completely eliminate any discretion for correctional authorities to adjust a sentence to leave earlier than the minimum amount of time required to serve. This is so even in the event that the offender is a model inmate or when the opinion of the correctional authorities suggest an early release would be good. Second, the increase of mandatory minimum sentencing especially for low level drug crimes, have led to the massive overcrowding of jails and prisons. As the responsible party, correctional facilities have had to make significant adjustments to effectively and legal manage the inmate population. Even the Department of Justice has recently, acknowledged the adverse impact that mandatory minimum sentencing has had on the correctional system (DOJ, 2015). Nevertheless, mandatory minimums remain one the books in most states and will therefore continue to impact correctional facilities.
References
Legal Information Institute (LII). (n.d.). Sentencing. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sentencing
Mackenzie, D.L. (2001). Sentencing and corrections in the 21st Century: Setting the stage for the future. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/189106-2.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). (2015). In milestone for sentencing reform, Attorney General Holder announces record reduction in mandatory minimums against nonviolent drug offenders. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/milestone-sentencing-reform-attorney-general-holder-announces-record-reduction-mandatory
