It is by now a commonplace that the number of people under criminal justice supervision in this country has reached a record high. As a result, the sentencing policies driving that number, and the field of corrections, where the consequences are felt, have acquired an unprecedented salience. It is a salience defined more by issues of magnitude, complexity, and expense than by any consensus about future directions. Are sentencing policies, as implemented through correctional programs and

more »

... s, achieving their intended purposes? As expressed in the movement to eliminate indeterminate sentencing and limit judicial discretion, on the one hand, and to radically restructure our retributive system of justice, on the other, the purposes seem contradictory, rooted in conflicting values. The lack of consensus on where sentencing and corrections should be headed is thus no surprise. Because sentencing and corrections policies have such major consequences-for the allocation of government resources and, more fundamentally and profoundly, for the quality of justice in this country and the safety of its citizens-the National Institute of Justice and the Corrections Program Office (CPO) of the Office of Justice Programs felt it opportune to explore R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f