The history of sentencing for criminal offenses has been a combination of determinate and indeterminate sentences. Determinate sentences were used throughout the 1800s, and the indeterminate sentences for most of the 1900s.

The history of sentencing for criminal offenses has been a combination of determinate and indeterminate sentences. Determinate sentences were used throughout the 1800s, and the indeterminate sentences for most of the 1900s. Over the past twenty years, disillusionment with the concept of rehabilitation, the medical model, and parole prompted a “tough on crime” philosophy that resulted in an apparent swing back to determinate sentencing and limited discretion with the imposition of mandatory sentencing and truth in sentencing. However, states have more recently become concerned about the increasing costs and prison overcrowding that has resulted from abandoning indeterminate sentences. As a result, some states have reversed themselves and returned to using an indeterminate sentencing structure. It has even been questioned whether the use of determinate sentences reduces public safety. Determinate sentences eliminate the role parole boards play as gatekeepers, keeping inmates who are at high risk of repeating their crimes in prison.
In this “You Make the Decision”, you must decide which of these two sentencing models you think is best and want implemented in your home state. Discuss the pros and cons for each sentencing model. Consider the important benefits of each model, and then decide which model you favor. If you are changing from the sentencing model currently used in your state, think of all the potential consequences likely to occur and the possible negative outcomes. You must make a choice: should your state use determinate or indeterminate sentencing?