All of the state and federal courts comply with the indeterminate sentencing regulations outlined for every state in the United States of America. In the majority of cases, the court rules a maximum sentence, but the jury is in the full right to choose from an extensive number of options — fines, incarceration, trial, and much more (Harrison, 2010). The decision concerning the release dates lies on the shoulders of the parole board.
Indeterminate Sentencing
The notion of the indeterminate sentence is based on the expectations that the act of imprisonment will re-educate some criminals. Another implication of this sentence model is that the reply to the sentence is different in dissimilar individuals (Harrison, 2010). Custodial representatives commonly favor the benefits of indeterminate sentencing for the reason that the motivation to get out of jail earlier encourages the inmates to behave appropriately while imprisoned. The key benefit of indeterminate sentencing is that the criminals who demonstrate the ability to change and behave appropriately will be liberated earlier than those who behave incorrectly and recurrently break the law. Another benefit is that there is a vigilant and explicit assessment before the lawbreaker leaves the prison and gets back to the normal life in a community (Harmon, 2012). The main drawback of indeterminate sentencing is that it permits the parole board to reach arbitrary and biased verdicts. It happens a lot that rather harsh decisions are made, and criminals receive inadequate sentences.
Determinate Sentencing
The determinate sentencing model, on the contrary, is compliant with a definite sentence which is not contingent on the inmates’ behavior and only depends on the jury’s decision (Bales & Miller, 2012). The key benefit of this model is that the jury pronounces the verdict at once without any regard to the future behavior. Nonetheless, this advantage is a kind of a drawback at the same time. Even though the court should be strict and just, the prison setting is able to change the lawbreakers from the inside and alter the way they think and behave. The use of the determinate sentence model gives those inmates no chance to minimize the number of years they will spend in jail (Bales & Miller, 2012).
Louisiana’s Sentencing Model
In 1916, Louisiana’s initial indeterminate sentence regulation was approved by the state administration. Since then, it has been revised on several occasions. There are two keys points that were affected by the judicial deviations the most (Harrison, 2010). First, there are crimes that are exempt from the requirements of the law. Second, the law initially presupposes a minimum sentence which can be forced. Under the requirements of the previous conditional release legislation, the excluded crimes are vital for the reason that only those inmates who were disciplined with an indeterminate sentence could be released on bail. The minimum sentence was the factor that outlined the time when the detainee could be free on parole (Paratore & Bowman, 2013).
The Choice of Sentencing Model for Lousisiana
I would not change the current state of affairs in Louisiana and keep the present sentencing model (indeterminate sentence). When stating this, I assume that every individual deserves the right to be treated equally and may count on the fair court decision. The criminals should be thoroughly checked and supervised throughout the incarceration period. Moreover, the current legal system should be maintained despite the evident gaps in the indeterminate sentence model so as to evade the situations when the wrong person is sentenced and has to do time in jail while being innocent.
References
Bales, W. D., & Miller, C. H. (2012). The impact of determinate sentencing on prisoner misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5), 394-403. Web.
Harmon, M. G. (2012). “Fixed” sentencing: The effect on imprisonment rates over time. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(3), 369-397. Web.
Harrison, K. (2010). Dangerous offenders, indeterminate sentencing, and the rehabilitation revolution. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 32(4), 423-433. Web.
Paratore, J. M., & Bowman, J. E. (2013). Indeterminate sentencing. The Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1-5. Web.