English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

American sentencing practices have undergone substantial transformation during the last decade. The emergence of the justice model of punishment,' the appearance of evaluation research apparently revealing the ineffectiveness of correctional treatment,2 and the subsequent retreat from the rehabilitative rationale have encouraged the abandonment of long-standing indeterminate sentencing systems. By the early 1980's, more than half of the states had adopted either determinate or mandatory sentences for various crime classifications.3 Furthermore, the Federal Sentencing Commission released its determinate sentencing guidelines for the federal system in 1987. In the new determinate sentencing systems, the role of the current offense,4 victim injury, use of a weapon, and a host of other variables have been quantified in order to reduce inequity in sentencing determinations.5 One of the consequences of this objectification has been to increase the visibility of the variables that

Justice in Sentencing: The Role of Prior Record of Criminal Involvement