Leymon 6
to a fixed amount of time and eliminates parole boards. This model, like sentencing guidelines, shifts the
role of the correctional system from a rehabilitation model to an incapacitation and/or deterrence model.
Finally, the analysis of sentencing reforms on the racial composition of state’s imprisonment rates
will assess the effect of statutory presumptive sentencing. This type of sentencing is much like
sentencing guidelines, but acts less like a sentencing rubric and attaches a more “fixed” sentence to a
particular crime than the indeterminate model. As with other sentencing reforms, considerable variation
between states adopting statutory presumptive sentencing exists. The important distinction in this
analysis is that this sentencing procedure again represents a shift from the indeterminate model to a model
focused on equalizing the variation in sentencing across similar crimes.
While parole boards have been eliminated in all states that have implemented determinate
sentencing, only 11 of the 17 states that have implemented sentencing guidelines have completely
eliminated parole boards. Conversely six states use parole boards to regulate release and only use
guidelines as a tool to regulate judges. By 2003, ten states had instituted presumptive guidelines, while
nine states used voluntary guidelines. Furthermore, six states were considering the implementation of
guidelines. Florida originally instituted a voluntary sentencing guideline system in 1983, but in 1994
switched to a determinate system. Nine states have implemented statutory presumptive sentencing, while
19 states have at least practically or fully abolished parole boards. The remaining states (including the six
considering guidelines) still used indeterminate sentencing. Figure 2, illustrates the use of presumptive
guidelines in the United States and clearly indicates that they represent a large segment of sentencing
procedures. While presumptive sentencing guidelines (legally binding sentencing procedure), voluntary
sentencing guidelines (sentencing guidelines acting as formal recommendations to judges, but do not
mandate that they be followed), and statutory presumptive sentencing are considered independent and
mutually exclusive “fixed” sentencing reforms; the elimination of discretionary release in the form of
parole boards or some other release determinant is considered a separate sentencing reform and may or
may not “coexists” with the other “fixed” reforms. While the elimination of parole boards often coincides
with the adoption of sentencing reforms, the coexistence of fixed (or at least not indeterminate)
Convention