The conscience and convenience of sentencing reform in Indiana

Over the course of the past decade and a half, enormous energy and talent have been devoted to the issue of determinate sentencing. Yet today we know little about the values underlying this reform, and we know even less about the efficacy of determinate sentencing as a crime control policy. This article considers these issues in Indiana 10 years after the renovation of the state's Penal Code. Through a survey of state legislators, an examination of law, official statistics, and personal interview data, the analysis endeavors to understand the ideologies, pragmatics, and impacts of sentencing reform. It is suggested that the implementation of determinate sentencing represents a corruption of both good intentions ("conscience)" and policy objectives. Parenthetically, the article argues that the constructs known as the crime control model and the justice model both constitute a case of arid scholasticism. That is, sentencing reform can be more fully understood in terms of organizational "convenience". Language: en

[1]  J. Hepburn,et al.  Determinate Sentencing and Imprisonment: A Failure of Reform , 1985 .

[2]  D. Farrington,et al.  Heresies Revived: Three Vexing Books@@@The Prediction of Criminal Behaviour: Statistical Approaches@@@The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending@@@Understanding and Controlling Crime: Toward a New Research Strategy , 1988 .

[3]  A. Blumstein.  Selective Incapacitation as a Means of Crime Control , 1983 .

[4]  A. Schneider.  RESTITUTION AND RECIDIVISM RATES OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS: RESULTS FROM FOUR EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES* , 1986 .

[5]  Lamar T. Empey,et al.  The effectiveness of correctional treatment : a survey of treatment evaluation studies , 1976 .

[6]  Stuart A. Scheingold,et al.  The Politics of Law and Order: Street Crime and Public Policy , 1984 .

[7]  Paul Gendreau,et al.  Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s , 1987 .

[8]  M. Zalman.  Sentencing in a free society: The failure of the President's Crime Commission to influence sentencing policy , 1987 .

[9]  J. Mitford.  KIND AND USUAL PUNISHMENT: THE PRISON BUSINESS , 1973 .

[10]  James F. Wilson.  Thinking About Crime , 1976 .

[11]  J. Cullen,et al.  Implementing Determinate Sentencing in Illinois: Conscience and Convenience , 1983 .

[12]  M. Forst,et al.  The Effects of Determinate Sentencing on Inmate Misconduct in Prison , 1983 .

[13]  R. Berk,et al.  Prison reform and State elites , 1977 .

[14]  J. Hagan,et al.  Criminal Sentences: Law without Order , 1973 .

[15]  Joseph E. Scott,et al.  House Arrest and Correctional Policy: Doing Time at Home , 1988 .

[16]  Elliott Currie,et al.  Confronting crime : an American challenge , 1985 .

[17]  J. Irwin.  Prisons in Turmoil , 1980 .

[18]  J. H. Kramer,et al.  A Comparative Assessment of Determinate Sentencing in the Four Pioneer States , 1978 .

[19]  R. Martinson.  California Research at the Crossroads , 1976 .

[20]  Andrew von Hirsch,et al.  Doing Justice--The Choice of Punishments , 1976 .

[21]  E. Haag.  Punishing Criminals: Concerning a Very Old and Painful Question , 1976 .

[22]  S. Caulfield,et al.  Public Opinion and Prison Policy: A Review , 1984 .

[23]  John D. Hewitt,et al.  Discretion and the Determinate Sentence: Its Distribution, Control, and Effect on Time Served , 1978 .

[24]  David M. Fogel.  We are the living proof: The justice model for corrections , 1975 .