The "Desert" Model for Sentencing: Its Influence, Prospects, and Alternatives

Explores the choice of sentencing rationale that ought to follow as the influence of penal rehabilitation has diminished in sentencing theory, seeking to link that choice to the larger normative aspirations to be pursued for sentencing reform. Focus is on the proportionalist or "desert" model of sentencing that gained traction in the late 1970s-1980s US & Western Europe. The origins of the desert model are traced, touching on objections to traditional versions of retributive punishment, & the centrality of the principle of proportionality to the model is noted. The desert model's implementation is discussed; it is stated that while influential among academics, the model's implementation is limited, with many US & European jurisdictions sticking with traditional discretionary sentencing schemes. However, proportionalist sentencing has persisted; reasons behind its attractiveness are examined. Attention then turns to Michael Tonry's (2007) assertion that proportionalist sentencing schemes are unsustainable, & an effort is made to discover where the problems lie & why. Tonry's suggestion for a revised normative framework to replace the desert model are assessed in terms of whether it satisfies a trio of aspirations for sentencing reform centered on the primary importance of justice, the moderation of sanction severity, & adequate & principled guidance. References. D. Edelman