{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03351141330743079, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016998542982030112, 'mean_word_length': 5.4576802507836994, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 1, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Exploring the Theory and Practice of Sentencing Reform

Just Sentencing, by Richard Frase, covers a lot of ground in formulating prescriptions for a more coherent, principles-based system of criminal sentencing in the United States. Frase makes the point early and often that even the most elegant theory of punishment is useless without clear guidance on real-world application and implementation. Therefore, he takes care to make the concrete connection between sentencing in theory and sentencing in practice, with particular attention to what he believes are the best state guideline systems. Consequently, Frase’s schema offers valuable and provocative reading for the entire range of practitioners and policymakers responsible for criminal laws, policies, procedures, and practices; analytical observers in centers of research; public policy commentators; and attentive citizens. This book definitely has an audience for what Frase calls an “expanded limiting-retributive state guidelines model” or, more simply, the “expanded model.” The book proposes to unify existing and developing ideas on the proper purposes of sentencing offenders who face possible confinement in jail or prison. Frase contends that for the past several decades the world of criminal sentencing has been rocked by change and “fragmentation” leading to a lack of national coherence on sentencing purposes and penalties. The system of indeterminate sentencing has collapsed (along with the rehabilitative ideal), and has often been replaced by more determinate sentencing systems (including mandatory minimums) with a distinct preference for more punitive penalties. The rush to harsher penalties has corresponded with a substantial, manyfold increase ∗Brian Ostrom is affiliated with the National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA, USA. Corresponding author. Email: bostrom@ncsc.org. Roger Hanson is a consultant at the National Center for State Courts, Denver, CO, USA. Criminal Justice Ethics, 2016 Vol. 35, No. 1, 80–86, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2016.1148970