COMMENTARY ON §706-621
This section states grounds or the types of factors which, while not controlling the court in the exercise of its discretion, should be accorded weight in favor of withholding the sanction of imprisonment. The exercise of discretion by different judges cannot be expected to lead to precisely uniform sentences; however, legislative guidelines such as the Code proposes will promote consistency in sentencing.
Such guides, if properly defined, should serve to promote both the thoughtfulness and consistency of dispositions, while distributing responsibility between the legislature and the court. This is the normal procedure in other fields involving large discretionary powers; there seems no reason why it should not be attempted here.[1]
These factors suggest that the court's first concern might be to determine the future danger threatened by the defendant's continued presence in open society, and that it minimize its concern for the purely deterrent purposes of the sanction of imprisonment.
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §706-621
Act 165, Session Laws 1980, deleted former paragraphs (2) and (6) and amended paragraph (8). After reviewing the section, the Legislature "decided to leave a great deal of discretion with the trial court to allow for the greatest possible leeway in dealing effectively with convicted persons." Conference Committee Report No. 35-80 (53-80).
Act 316, Session Laws 1993, amended this section to provide that the court, in determining whether to impose a term of probation, shall consider the expedited sentencing program set forth in §706-606.3 if the defendant has qualified for that program. House Standing Committee Report No. 1174, Senate Standing Committee Report No. 849.
Act 157, Session Laws 1995, extended the sunset date of the amendment to this section made by Act 316, Session Laws 1993, from June 30, 1995 to June 30, 2001. The legislature found that the expedited sentencing program served as "a viable alternative in a small number of select cases" and that the program should continue to be available within the criminal justice system. However, the legislature believed that there was insufficient basis to determine whether the program should be made permanent. Conference Committee Report No. 62.
Case Notes
These grounds may be accorded great weight, but do not control the discretion of the court. 60 H. 314, 588 P.2d 929.
Cited: 73 H. 81, 829 P.2d 1325.
Mentioned: 76 H. 408, 879 P.2d 513.
__________
§706-621 Commentary:
1. M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 2, comments at 34 (1954).