A Response To Struggle For Justice
| Author | Edmund B. Spaeth |
| Published date | 01 April 1972 |
| Date | 01 April 1972 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/003288557205200102 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
-4-
A
Response
To
Struggle
For
Justice
By
Hon.
Edmund
B.
Spaeth
Jr.
Philadelphia
Court
of
Common
Pleas
In
1967
the
American
Bar
Association
Project
on
Minimum
Standards
for
Criminal
Justice
released
its
Tentative
Draft
of
Standards
Relating
to
Sentencing
Alternatives
and
Procedures.
In Part
III
of
the
Standardsl
there
appeared
a
most
meticulous
consideration
of
the
indeterminate
sentence.
The
conclusions
reached
were
as
follows.
The
legislature
should
specify
the
maximum
period
for
which
a
sentence
of
commitment
to
a
correctional
institution
could
be
imposed.
The
court
in
imposing
sentence
should
have
the
authority
to
select
any
period
within
this
maximum.
The
court
should
also
have
the
authority
to
impose
a
minimum
sentence,
but
in
most
cases
it
should
not
exercise
this
authority
but
should
leave
to
the
parole
board
the
decision
when
a
prisoner
should
be
released.
If
the
court
did
impose
a
minimum
sentence,
the
sentence
should
be
&dquo;reasonably
short&dquo;.
It
will
be
observed
that
these
conclusions
reject
a
number
of
prevalent
practices:
sentence
should
not
be
imposed
by
the
jury;
the
legislature
should
specify
neither
a
mandatory
maxi-
mum
nor
a
mandatory
minimum
sentence;
and
it
should
not
be
possible
to
impose
a
minimum
sentence
almost
as
long
as
the
maximum.
Also,
it
will
be
observed
that
the
conclusions
reflect
a
compromise
resolution
of
the
debate
between
the
Model
Penal
Code,
which
provides
for
minimum
sentences
in
the
case
of
felonies,&dquo;
and
the
Model
Sentencing
Act,
which
provides
that
there
should
be
immediate
eligibility
for
parole,
which
is
to
say,
no
minimum
sentence
in
any
case,
even
of
the
most
dangerous
offender.3
3
To
many
it
will
seem
that
the
Standards’
discussion
of
the
reasons
for
these
conclusions
is
so
comprehensive
and
careful
as
to
represent
the
last
word
on
indeterminate
sentences;
and
when
I
read
it,
so
it
seemed
to
me.
Recently.
however,
in
November,
1971,
there
was
published
a
report
prepared
for
the
American
Friends
Service
Committee,
entitled
Struggle
For
1.
At
129
et seq.
2.
Model
Penal
Code
§6.06.
3.
Model
Sentencing
Act,
Art.
III.
-5-
Justice.4
Generally
stated,
the
conclusion
of
the
report
is
that
there
is
no
merit
in
the
indeterminate
sentence,
what-
ever
its
particular
form.
From
this
it
might
be
supposed
that
the
respective
arguments
in
the
Standards
and
in
Struggle
For
Justice
must
join
issue;
in
fact
they
pass
each
other.
In
the
Standards
the
essential
soundness
of
our
criminal
justice
system
is
not
questioned;
the
effort
is
to
refine
and
perfect
the
indeterminate
sentence
on
the
assumption
that
thereby
our
criminal
justice
system
will
function
more
ef~ciently.
In
Struggle
For
Justice
our
criminal
system
is
attacked
as
essen-
tially
unsound;
and
the
indeterminate
sentence
is
seen
both
as
reflecting
and
as
contributing
to
that
unsoundness.
In
what
follows
I
shall
not
discuss
the
Standards,
for
I
have
nothing
to
add
to
what
is
said
there;
I
continue
to
regard
the
Standards’
discussion
of
the
form
of
the
indeterminate
sentence
as
the
last
word.
Instead,
I
shall
undertake
to
respond
to
the
argument
of
Struggle
For
Justice
that
our
criminal
justice
system
is
in
its
very
conception
unsound;
for
it
is
an
honorable
argument,
springing
from
a
proper
outrage
with
the
results
of
our
present
criminal
justice
procedures,5
results
so
un-
fortunate
that
we
should
ourselves
have
asked
long
ago
whether,
indeed,
we
have
not
been
acting
on
mistaken
premises.
Different
kinds
o f
indeterminate
sentences
There
are
three
kinds
of
indeterminate
sentences,
which
may
be
distinguished
from
one
another
according
to
the
extent
to
which
the
sentencing
court
may
restrict
the
parole
board.
6
4.
The
report
appears
over
the
names
of
seventeen
persons,
some
of
them
scholars,
some
experienced
in
the
administration
of
the
criminal
law,
some
prisoners
or
former
prisoners,
and
some
with
family
members
in
prison:
G.
Richard
Bacon;
Richard
Boardman;
Spencer
Coxe;
Caleb
Foote;
James
V.
Giles;
David
Greenberg;
Mike
Ingerman;
John
Irwin;
Alex
Knopp;
Sam
Legg;
Jan
Marinissen;
Charlotte
Meacham;
Edwin
C.
Morgenroth,
Chairman;
Tom
Nelson;
George
Sawyer;
Jane
Schulman;
Mark
Morris,
staff
writer.
5.
Cf.
Black,
The
Crisis
in
Capital
Punishment,
31
Md.
L.
Rev.
289,
311
(1971):
Law
which
blushes
or
smirks
at
the
mention
of
charity
is
bad
law.
Charity
is
not
sending
in
money;
charity
is
not
merely
giving
other
people
the
benefit of
the
doubt.
Charity
in
its
human-to-human
aspect
is
the
virtue
of
connectedness
with
all
other
people,
of
concern
for
them,
of
obligation
for
their
well-being.
Charity
is
the
belief,
and
action
on
the
belief,
that
we
are
all
severally
members
each
of
the
other.
Our
society,
our
whole
world,
are
sick
from
the
want
of
charity.
We
pass
one
another
by
without
looking;
that
sums
up
what
is
wrong.
6.
In
fact
more
than
three
kinds
might
be
described;
thus
a
fourth
kind
of
indeterminate
sentence
(which
used
to
apply
in
Pennsylvania)
will
be
mentioned
in
a
moment.
The
three
to
be
described,
however,
repre-
sent
the
principal
varieties.
For
complete
description,
see
Standards
Relating
to
Sentencing
Alternatives
and
Procedures,
supra.
To continue reading
Request your trial