Evaluation of North Carolina's Structured Sentencing Law. Research in Brief

摘要

This document summarizes the results of a National Institute of Justice sponsored study that evaluated the effects of a 1994 legislated sentencing reform in North Carolina. Sentencing reforms have proliferated in the United States since the 1970s. These changes have been prompted by a variety of factors: dissatisfaction with the rehabilitative goals of indeterminate sentencing, disparities in sentencing practices, beliefs that the disparities between incarceration sentences given and actual time served was excessive (truth in sentencing), hopes that reform would elevate public safety effects, and concerns about the levels and types of correctional resources that must be expended to implement sentences given by the courts. Most of the recent changes have involved the implementation of sentencing guidelines or structured sentencing developed under State statutes. Sentencing guidelines typically involve the specification of presumptive sentences that guide judges sentencing decisions. The presumptive sentence depends on the type of offense an individual has been convicted of and his or her previous conviction record. The presumptive sentence can be enhanced or mitigated based on factors related to the case. If there is a single hallmark of sentencing guidelines, it is that it has shaped and reduced judicial sentencing discretion.