Indeterminate sentencing
Indeterminate sentencing is a judicial practice where convicted offenders receive prison sentences defined by a range of years rather than a fixed term. This system allows judges discretion in determining sentences, which can include prison time, probation, or fines. Under indeterminate sentencing, offenders typically must serve a minimum time corresponding to the lower end of their sentence range, while release dates can be influenced by corrections officials and parole boards based on individual circumstances and rehabilitative progress. Originally prevalent in the U.S. judicial system until the mid-1970s, this model aimed to tailor punishments to the unique characteristics of each case and offender, promoting rehabilitation over strict punishment.
However, indeterminate sentencing faced criticism for allowing potentially arbitrary and biased decisions, leading to calls for more structured sentencing approaches that ensure fairness and consistency in legal outcomes. Critics argue that this discretion can undermine public trust and lead to disparities based on race or other factors. Proponents, on the other hand, maintain that such flexibility helps prioritize rehabilitation and public safety by enabling judges and corrections professionals to make informed decisions about an offender's readiness for reintegration into society. As of the early 2000s, most states and the federal system have transitioned to structured sentencing frameworks, reducing the role of discretion in sentencing decisions.
On this Page
Indeterminate sentencing
SIGNIFICANCE: Federal and most state courts no longer use the once-universal system of awarding prison terms of indeterminate length, a change that has reduced the role of discretion in all parts of the criminal justice system.
As recently as the mid-1970s, the judicial systems of every US state, the District of Columbia, and the federal government had indeterminate sentencing systems. Under those systems, legislature set statutory maximums on authorized prison sentences. When awarding sentences, judges could choose between prison, probation, and fines and could set maximum prison terms. Corrections officials could determine good time and early releases, and parole boards could set release dates, Virtually all those decisions were free from appellate review. By 2004, most states and the federal government had switched to a system of structured sentencing.
Indeterminate sentencing takes its name from the fact that at the time convicted offenders are sentenced, they do not know exactly how long they will be in prison or under supervision. Under such a system, the sentences that judges award to offenders are defined by ranges of years, usually divided into “low” and “upper” ranges. In most systems, offenders are required to serve at least 100 percent of their low range and not more than 100 percent of their upper range.
The goal of indeterminate sentencing was to allow sentencing decisions to be based on the individual characteristics of the cases and offenders. At every stage of the sentencing and corrections process, officials had the authority to tailor punishments and treatments to the needs of individual offenders. By the mid-1970s, indeterminate sentencing systems were beginning to erode. Civil and prisoner rights activists claimed that the broad discretion afforded by indeterminate sentencing systems produced arbitrary and unpredictable decisions that were often racially biased. Opponents of indeterminate sentencing also claimed that standardless discretion denied offenders constitutional due process of law.
Critics have also claimed that indeterminate sentencing removed links between the seriousness of crimes and the sentences that were awarded. They argued that offenders should receive specific punishments for specific crimes so that nothing depreciates the seriousness of the crimes. Another criticism is that indeterminate sentencing allows judges and other officials involved in sentencing decisions to negate public perceptions and views of punishments.
There are many arguments in support of indeterminate sentencing as well. One argument is exactly the reverse of the argument that the indeterminate process insulates the public from the punishment process. Proponents of indeterminate sentencing argue that leaving punishment decisions to criminal justice experts, such as judges, rather than to legislatures is more likely to result in rehabilitation of the offenders.
Proponents would also argue that indeterminate sentencing does a better job of taking into account rehabilitation and public safety goals than do determinate sentencing systems. At the heart of indeterminate sentencing is the idea that humans are malleable and redeemable and that if they are given the opportunity to better themselves in exchange for earlier release dates, they will reform. Indeterminate sentencing allows judges and correctional officials, professionals who routinely work with offenders, to determine the risk factors and recommend release dates and plans. By giving professionals who know the individual offenders the opportunity to determine their release date, public safety concerns are given top priority.
Bibliography
Branham, Lynn S. The Law and Policy of Sentencing and Corrections in a Nutshell. 9th ed. St. Paul: West, 2013. Print.
Reitz, Kevin R. et al. "American Prison-Release Systems: Indeterminacy in Sentencing and the Control of Prison Population Size." Robina Institute of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota, 6 Jan. 2022, robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/american-prison-release-systems-indeterminacy-sentencing-and-control-prison-population. Accessed 5 July 2024.
Tonry, Michael, and Richard S. Frase, eds. Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.
Ulmer, Jeffery T. Social Worlds of Sentencing: Court Communities under Sentencing Guidelines. Albany: State U of New York P, 1997. Print.