1. Clearly and thoroughly explainindeterminate sentencing.

2. Clearly and thoroughly explaindeterminate sentencing.

3. Why is it that some of the strongest proponents of determinate sentencing are prisoners?

Be sure to support your answer with information from the below.

Reading below:

Describing how sentencing is accomplished across the country is not easily done. Each state and the federal government have developed their own specific procedures for determining and assigning the type and severity of punishment given to convicted offenders. Rather than trying to describe 51 different systems, the various approaches are typically grouped into one of two basic typesbut with the important caution that there are hybrids (called structured sentencing) within each of the two systems, making it difficult to flatly say that a particular state is a pure example of one type or the other. The two broad approaches are indeterminate sentencing and determinate sentencing. During the first hundred years of sentencing in the United States, the various states took the position that offenders should be sentenced to a specific penalty (a determinate sentence). Typically, that sentence was either corporal or capital punishment. With the growing use of prisons for punishment, the idea of specific penalties remained and offenders were sentenced to prison for a definite time period. A prisoner was released from confinement only when he or she had completed the years, months, and days stipulated in the judge's sentence. By the mid-nineteenth century, some prison officials were convinced that a fixed penalty prevented the reformation of offenders by keeping prisoners confined regardless of their efforts toward improvement. A new sentencing strategyindeterminate sentencingdeveloped that allowed people other than a judge to determine when a prisoner should be released from confinement. Although it followed determinate sentencing in U.S. history, indeterminate sentencing provides the background for an understanding of today's resurgence of fixed or specific penalties, so we begin with the indeterminate type.

Sentencing Guidelines Sentencing guidelines impose a predefined sentence length based on crime severity and prior criminal history, with the opportunity for the judge to depart (impose a greater or a lesser sentence) from the guidelines when circumstances warrant. When indeterminate sentencing states use guidelines that retain a parole board, the judge is recommended to use a range of years deemed appropriate for the case at hand. When guidelines are used in determinate sentencing jurisdictions, the judge sets a very narrow range or fixed sentence.

The two types of sentencing guidelines are voluntary and presumptive. In states with voluntary sentencing guidelines, possible sentences are suggested, but judges are not required to follow those suggestions. In states with presumptive sentencing guidelines, judges are required to issue a sentence that falls in a range established for a particular crime; they may even be required to provide written reasons for deviating beyond the customary limits. The presumptive model has been endorsed by the American Bar Association and in the American Law Institute's revised Model Penal Code (Frase, 2012). In addition, research suggests that presumptive guidelines may be more effective than voluntary guidelines in eliminating racial and ethnic disparities (Wang, Mears, Spohn, & Dario, 2013, p. 107). One jurisdiction using presumptive guidelines has received considerable attention and will be used here to describe more fully the use of such guidelines. Minnesota uses sentencing guidelines that arrange presumptive penalties in the cells of a matrix or grid. The guidelines are created by a sentencing commission that determines suitable sentences for particular crimes and offenders. Minnesota's presumptive sentencing guidelines system has been adopted in several other jurisdictions and is often identified as the premier example of this structural model (Frase, 2013). As shown in Figure 4-4, the grid is composed of 11 rows identifying crime severity levels ranging from those at the lower level of 1 to the higher level of 11. The grid's seven columns identify the offender's criminal history score, which is based on items such as number of prior misdemeanors and felony convictions, whether the offender was under correctional supervision when the current offense occurred, and prior juvenile adjudications (Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2013). In the boxes where these two dimensions intersect are numbers that tell judges what the sentencing commission considers the ideal sentence (in months) for a particular crime committed by an offender with a particular criminal history score.

Dividing the grid is a solid line that distinguishes sentences where imprisonment is presumed or mandatory (boxes above and to the right of the line) from sentences that are presumed will involve a stayed sentence (either the imposition or execution is stayed) and could include community sanctions, such as probation.

As an example of how a Minnesota judge might use the grid, look at Figure 4-4 and consider a robbery involving two offenders with similar criminal histories. If offender "A" (the leader/instigator) had a criminal history score of 2 and was convicted of aggravated robbery, he could receive a sentence of between 58 and 81 months in prison. The accomplice, offender "B" with a criminal history score of 2, is convicted of simple robbery because she had a minor role of driving the getaway car. She could receive a prison sentence of 28 months that is stayed as long as she successfully completes a period on probation. Guidelines in other states vary with respect to the offense severity ranking and also the way the criminal history score is calculated. There are also different regulations that govern the circumstances in which a judge may depart from the guideline ranges.