Each opinion is assigned a Miscellaneous 3d citation as well as a unique Slip Opinion citation that is paginated to permit pinpoint page references.
These included the law relating to certain aspects of the criminal law, and, first and foremost, sentencing policy. During the course of its research on sentencing, the Commission noted that a clear statement of the matters proper to be taken into account in sentencing convicted persons is closely dependent on the policy governing the sentencing of offenders first being clearly articulated: The Commission concluded that the primary matter to be dealt with, therefore, was the formulation of a coherent sentencing policy, which, once in place, would indicate what matters ought properly be taken into account in sentencing.
In the present Consultation Paper we begin by setting out in Chapter 1 the existing law and practice of sentencing and touch briefly upon the difficulties encountered in this area. In Chapter 2 we then examine the role of sentencing policy and the effect which incoherent policy has on existing sentencing law and practice.
Chapter 5 examines the types of matter proper to be taken into account in sentencing, and Chapter 6 looks at the importance of prior criminal record. Chapter 7 contains a review of sentencing policy in other jurisdictions.
Chapter 8 examines continental European responses to sentencing disparity. Chapter 9 discusses in detail means of implementing sentencing policy, drawing on the rich A study of determinate and indeterminate sentencing of comparative experience.
Subsequent chapters are concerned with the statutory context of sentencing Chapter 10 ; matters of procedure Chapters 11, 12, 13 and 14 ; the co-ordination of penal and sentencing policy Chapter 15 ; and sentencing information and studies Chapter We conclude by setting out our provisional proposals for reform.
On the 30th of September, when the Commission was on the point of going to print, the Minister for Justice presented the Criminal Justice Bill, The Commission had to decide at that stage whether to ignore or examine the Bill.
We decided to examine it, even if this delayed publication.
Our examination led in particular to a re-appraisal of the Commission's approach to Victim Impact evidence. The Commission was unable to agree on a provisional recommendation so we have simply set out below arguments for and against the introduction of mandatory victim impact statements and have sought views.
It is a feature of the criminal justice system that decisions are taken at one stage in ignorance of what is occurring elsewhere in the system.
Any provisional recommendations in this paper or recommendations ultimately made in our Report will be rendered comparatively ineffective by the absence of proper information. Details of every sentence imposed in every court and of every instance of election for trial venue by judge, prosecution or accused should be recorded and speedily retrievable.
It would not be possible to attain this by relying on occasional research. This office, which could be given a statutory basis, would have to secure the trust and confidence of the aforementioned bodies and of the judiciary in order to ensure that the relevant information would readily be made available, if necessary by affording access to files and orders.
Justice Hederman, was appointed before this paper went to print, he took no part in its preparation and it would be unfair in the circumstances to associate him with any provisional recommendation made in the Paper.
Happily, the Commission will have the benefit of his extensive experience in this area when it comes to make its final Report. We emphasise that the proposals for reform contained in this Consultation Paper are provisional in their nature.
We invite written submissions in relation to any of these proposals and the material contained in this Consultation Paper.
Any such submissions received by us will be assessed with great care before we present our final proposals to the Attorney General. We also hope to hold a Seminar which will enable a full discussion of the Consultation Paper to take place. We would be grateful if submissions on the Consultation Paper were sent to us at the Commission's Offices not later than 1st June, A number of more helpful formulations appear in recent sentencing reform literature.
A Canadian Approach, p The Victorian Sentencing Committee said: Many of those sanctions involve punishment, others involve the exercise of mercy and yet others represent means by which a person's conduct or attitudes may be altered so they do not offend in the future.
Sentencing involves a decision by a judge9 as to what the criminal justice system should do to a person found guilty of an offence.
Formulation of Sentencing Policy. The notion of punishment implies, as we shall see, a certain ideological approach to the question of sentencing: Another approach, that of rehabilitation, prefers to view the imposition of legal sanction not as punishment, but as treatment.
Later, we shall examine the merits of these differing views,11 but for the present it may be of some assistance to discussion if we do not commit ourselves to any one ideological approach. The proceedings may have taken a number of courses prior to this: The court may then proceed to sentence, or it may adjourn for the compilation of reports and to allow the parties to call witnesses to the court.
If the plea or finding of guilt was made in the District Court, the District Judge may have sent the offender forward to the Circuit Court for sentencing in order to avail of that court's wider jurisdiction. It should be observed that not all sentencing hearings will follow this pattern, since neither the rules of court, legislation nor judicial precedent set out a course of procedure to be followed at every sentencing hearing.
Indeed, in some cases, particularly at District Court level, it is difficult to distinguish the sentencing hearing from the determination of the substantive issue of guilt since the District Judge may decide the sentence to be imposed on the evidence adduced during the course of the trial.
Nonetheless, practice has over the years established a pattern of procedure which is generally followed at sentencing hearings in the superior courts.The citational footnote style is an alternative to the traditional placement of citations, using footnotes only for the citational content that would otherwise appear in the body of an opinion if either the running text citation style (§ [b]) or the citations within parentheses style (§ [c]) were used.
the debate over determinate versus indeterminate sentencing is actually a debate between proponents of the medical or treatment model of corrections (which has not proved effective) and those who favor the punitive model (which may lead to tyranny).
For additional resources, please visit the Principles report homepage.. Acknowledgements. The NCSL Sentencing and Corrections Work Group was staffed and this report was prepared by Alison Lawrence, policy specialist, and Donna Lyons, group director, for the .
Indeterminate sentencing is the sentencing of a range of jail time to an individual convicted of a crime, such as one to three years. This is the opposite of determinate sentencing, which is the sentencing of an individual to a set amount of jail time, such as one year, or three years.
To allow victims of the crime the opportunity to personally describe the impact of the crime. To allow victims to retaliate against an offender.
Let's take a closer look at indeterminate sentencing. Indeterminate Sentencing. Remember that, in most states, the judge has wide discretion when deciding and imposing a sentence, which will be identified as a range.
Let's say our convicted offender receives an indeterminate sentence of one to five years.