Pennsylvania is one of several states in the United States that follows an indeterminate sentencing scheme. Under this scheme, judges have a range of options when it comes to sentencing an offender, including both minimum and maximum sentences. This is in contrast to a determinate sentencing scheme, where judges must impose a fixed sentence based on a predetermined set of guidelines.
In Pennsylvania, judges are required to consider a number of factors when determining an offender’s sentence, including the nature and severity of the crime, the offender’s prior criminal history, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances that may be present. This allows judges to take into account the unique circumstances of each case and to tailor the sentence to fit the individual offender.
One key feature of Pennsylvania’s indeterminate sentencing scheme is the use of “minimum” and “maximum” sentences. When an offender is sentenced to jail or prison, the judge must impose a minimum sentence, which represents the minimum amount of time the offender must serve. However, the judge must also impose a maximum sentence, which represents the longest possible time incarcerated that the offender could receive. If an offender stays locked up for the entire sentence, it is called “maxing out.”
During the course of the offender’s incarceration, a parole board will periodically review the offender’s case and determine whether or not they are eligible for parole. If the offender is granted parole, they may be released from prison before serving their entire minimum sentence on limited occasions. However, if they violate the terms of their parole or commit additional crimes, they may be sent back to prison to serve the remainder of their sentence.
One advantage of Pennsylvania’s indeterminate sentencing scheme is that it allows for greater flexibility in sentencing. This can be particularly beneficial in cases where an offender has unique circumstances that might warrant a shorter or longer sentence than what would be allowed under a determinate sentencing scheme.
However, indeterminate sentencing can also be criticized for being less predictable and potentially less fair than determinate sentencing. Because judges have more discretion in imposing sentences, there is a greater risk of disparities in sentencing between different judges or even between different cases heard by the same judge and even by being in different parts of the state
In contrast, under a determinate sentencing scheme, judges are required to impose a fixed sentence based on a predetermined set of guidelines. This can help to ensure consistency and fairness in sentencing, but may also limit a judge’s ability to consider individual circumstances that might warrant a shorter or longer sentence.
Ultimately, the choice between an indeterminate or determinate sentencing scheme is a complex one that depends on a variety of factors, including the goals of the criminal justice system, the nature of the crimes being punished, and the values of the society in which the system operates. Pennsylvania’s indeterminate sentencing scheme has its advantages and disadvantages, and the ongoing debate over the best approach to sentencing continues to be an important topic in criminal justice policy.
Our Clients are entitled to a Bill of Rights which states:
- Our clients have the right to expect, we will be proactive in communication. You will hear it from us first. We will return all phone calls, texts and emails promptly.
- Our clients have the right to expect plain speaking, straight shooting. No B. S.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to do it right the first time, every time.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to be on time and professionally prepared for all court appearances, and all meetings.
- Our clients have the right to expect that they will be fully informed at all times.
This is our promise to you. Call today to get us on your side: (717) 657-3900.
