Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1688992
 


 



Sentencing Option: Why Restrict Judges?


Kenneth Streit


University of Wisconsin Law School

John Chisholm


Independent

October 7, 2010

Wisconsin Lawyer, Vol. 83, No. 9, September 2010
Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1138

Abstract:     
Dissatisfaction with parts of the indeterminate (parole) sentencing system led many states, including Wisconsin, to totally eliminate this and substitute a Truth-in-Sentencing system. After a decade with the new system, there are also many problems including difficulty in arranging programs, overcrowding and banishing the concept of rehabilitation. An adjustment would be to provide judges with both options at the time of sentencing so that the most serious offenders would be serving the fullest sentence while others would have earlier access to treatment and possible earned release.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 6

Keywords: prison, prisoners, prison crowding, parole, sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, determinate sentence, treatment, rehabilitation, corrections

JEL Classification: K14

working papers series


Download This Paper

Date posted: October 10, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Streit, Kenneth and Chisholm, John, Sentencing Option: Why Restrict Judges? (October 7, 2010). Wisconsin Lawyer, Vol. 83, No. 9, September 2010; Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1138. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1688992 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1688992

Contact Information

Kenneth Streit (Contact Author)
University of Wisconsin Law School ( email )
975 Bascom Mall
Madison, WI 53706
United States
John Chisholm
Independent
No Address Available
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 392
Downloads: 59
Download Rank: 212,792

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.329 seconds