| Description |
Over the last 20 years, the United States has engaged in an experiment that has fundamentally changed how offenders are sentenced by the courts. Dramatic, and sometimes drastic, changes were made in the sentencing codes in almost every jurisdiction, designed to "get tough" on crime through mandatory minimum sentences and to limit the discretion of judges and parole boards. Responding to the call to "do something about crime," politicians passed The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (The Federal Crime Bill) which increased punishment and expanded the number of crimes qualifying for imprisonment. The Federal Crime Bill reflects the politically popular rhetoric of the 1980's and early 1990's (i.e. "Three Strikes" and "T'he War on Drugs" ) which has resulted in irrational sentencing policies, creating an unmanageable and ever-growing imprisonment rate and prison construction rate. The focus of this thesis lS to examine our current corrections and sentencing dilemmas and evaluate whether or not the stipulations of the Federal Crime Bill would benefit Utah's indeterminate sentencing system. In response to the woes of our nation's current correctional systems and sentencing dilemmas, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) issued the "Criminal Justice Sentencing; Policy Statement" In April 1992. The NCCD report concluded, after extensive research, that the sentencing policies of the last two decades are in critical need of reform. Using the criteria of the NCCD report, this thesis will demonstrate that Utah's sentencing structure complies with the NCCD recommendations far more now than if the Federal Crime Bill were adopted. It will further show that Utah's indeterminate sentencing system is a more rational approach to sentencing than what The Federal Crime Bill stipulates. Finally, this thesis concludes that politicians must stand firm in their sentencing structure and not succumb pressures for federal compliance. |
