Violent crimes have prompted society to demand stricter punishments for offenders. Along with this demand, came the assessment of the type of sentencing utilized by the state and federal government. Reform proponents in the criminal justice system have made substantial strive to combat criticism of its rehabilitation efforts by insisting on sentence that befitting to the crime. In order to achieve these goals, numerous States have implemented an amalgamation of sentencing methods, which included indeterminate sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing for some offenses, voluntary sentencing guideline, presumptive sentencing guideline, and the subject of this paper determinate sentencing. .
In the 1980's, state and federal systems were adopting a revised form of determinate sentencing, but the justice model was not fully adopted in any jurisdiction. Needless to say, the result was a "hodge-podge" of structured sentencing models. In this paper, the recent trend toward determinate sentencing and its impact on probationary terms will be discussed. Moreover, the question of why legislatures have progressively chosen mandatory minimum jail and prison sentences for crimes, contiguous with mandatory lengths and forms of supervision post-incarceration release will be examined. This author will examine whether mandatory sentencing from a criminal justice standpoint, reduce recidivism, and work for the capricious degrees of crimes.
Determinate sentencing is defined as sentencing in which incarceration offenders are given a set term that could be reduced based on good behavior or earned time. Normally there are specific standards stipulating the extent of punishment and release date before the parole board will entertain a review of the offender possible parole(Sieh, 2006). Additionally, post-incarceration supervision may be part of the requirement in this type sentence(Austin, Jones, Kramer, & Renninger, 2004).
