Chapter 7 - § 7.1 • THE GOALS OF SENTENCING

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 7.1 • THE GOALS OF SENTENCING

§ 7.1.1—Summary

C.R.S. § 18-1-102.5 expressly sets forth the purposes that are to be accomplished with every criminal sentence, whether misdemeanor or felony, entered in the state of Colorado. Those purposes are:

(a) To punish a convicted offender by assuring the imposition of a sentence he deserves in relation to the seriousness of his offense;
(b) To assure the fair and consistent treatment of all convicted offenders by eliminating unjustified disparity in sentences, providing fair warning of the nature of the sentence to be imposed, and establishing fair procedures for the imposition of sentences;
(c) To prevent crime and promote respect for the law by providing an effective deterrent to others likely to commit similar offenses;
(d) To promote rehabilitation by encouraging correctional programs that elicit the voluntary cooperation and participation of convicted offenders;
(e) To select a sentence, a sentence length, and a level of supervision that addresses the offender's individual characteristics and reduces the potential that the offender will engage in criminal conduct after completing his or her sentence; and
(f) To promote acceptance of responsibility and accountability by offenders and to provide restoration and healing for victims and the community while attempting to reduce recidivism and the costs to society by the use of restorative justice practices.

In 2011, the Colorado legislature amended C.R.S. § 18-1-102.5 to include the final two purposes listed above. Thus, in addition to the previously existing purposes, which were "to punish a defendant in relation to the seriousness of the offense, to assure fair and consistent treatment of all convicted offenders, to deter others likely to commit similar offenses, and to promote the defendant's rehabilitation," People v. Reed, 43 P.3d 644, 646-47 (Colo. App. 2001), sentencing judges must now additionally employ evidence-based practices and accommodate restorative justice concerns.

Sentencing has traditionally been a discretionary function that required a trial court to weigh the applicable goals and strike a fair accommodation between a defendant's need for rehabilitation or treatment and society's interest in safety and deterrence. Id. (citing People v. Watkins, 613 P.2d 633 (Colo. 1980)). Because of the historically discretionary nature of sentencing, judges are perceived to have wide latitude in imposing sentences. People v. Martinez, 628 P.2d 608, 611 (Colo. 1981). The discretion is not unrestricted: "[It] should reflect a rational selection from various sentencing alternatives in a manner consistent with the dominant aims of the sentencing process." Watkins, 613 P.2d at 636. The "dominate aims of the sentencing process" are subject to legislative definition.

Judges must follow legislative mandates when imposing sentences. C.R.S. § 42-4-1307 curtails some judicial discretion regarding DUI sentences. For misdemeanor DUI/DWAI convictions, judges must obtain an alcohol evaluation prior to sentencing (unless the defendant and...