What are the pros and cons of determinate sentencing?

Answer 1

The vices and virtues of determinative sentencing depend largely the theory of punishment you embrace, and your definition of "justice":

For example, determinate sentencing is good if you're aiming at general deterrence because it increases public awareness about what the punishment will be for a given crime, enhancing a punishment's deterrent effect.

Some people might also think that determinative sentencing will increase "fairness" or "justice" in sentencing by reducing the discretion and bias of individual judges and juries. This is positive because some judges and juries may tend towards harsher sentences than others, may be sensitive to certain races or genders, or may consider irrelevant factors in making the sentencing decision. Proponents of determinate sentencing would say: at least there's consistency.


The problem with this is that consistency is not actually the same as fairness. Even though discretion can introduce prejudice into sentencing, discretion also allows judges to make individualized determinations, which better fit the defendant's blameworthiness. Non-determinate sentencing, therefore, is better from the retributivist standpoint: the judge can consider the defendant's mental state, testimony, background, and individual circumstances-- things that determinate sentences won't account for. Even though determinate sentencing may include sentencing grids or formulas (accounting for prior convictions and other mitigating and aggravating factors), these bright-line rules will always be over- or under-inclusive.

Answer 2

A prison term that is definite and not subject to review by parole board or other agency.