HINDSIGHT AND THE FAILURE OF CALIFORNIA’S UNIFORM
DETERMINATIVE SENTENCING ACT
Emily de Ayora
January 23, 2006
California Prison Reform
“Determinate Sentencing does not face public safety as a real factor. Determinate
sentencing attempts to provide specified terms for purposes of consistency, for purposes
of uniformity, for purposes of retribution, for purposes of deterrence. It does not serve
the function of rehabilitation and it does not serve the function, logically, of isolation.
There’s nothing wrong with consistency and there’s nothing wrong with uniformity and
there is certainly nothing wrong with the fact that determinate sentencing has been
largely responsible for providing some consistency in the results we’ve had with respect
to different racial, ethnic groups, crimes, and everything else. But public safety is a goal
that must be recognized as one of the paramount concerns of the criminal justice and
sentencing system.”
- Justice James Ardaiz Associate Justice, 5th District Court of Appeal
Fresno, California
Abstract
This paper looks at the initial goals of the Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act as it was
enacted in 1976. It analyzes those goals in comparison to the program that came before
it, the Indeterminate Sentencing Law. It then looks at the situation as it is today, and
attempts to decipher whether any of the goals set forth by the original drafters of the
sentencing law were actually accomplished.
Table of Contents
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………1
Indeterminate Sentencing – What Went Wrong?..................................................6
Goals of the UDSA…………………………………………………………………..9
Did the UDSA “Work”?............................................................................................14
Initial Problems………………………………………………………………14
Uniformity Amongst Sentences and Punishment……………………………..17
Specific and General Deterrence……………………………………………..22
Social Protection……………………………………………………………...23
Conclu