RATIONALISM VERSUS INCREMENTALISM IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING |
| |
| Authors: | Stuart Nagel |
| |
| Affiliation: | STUART S. NAGEL is a Professor of Political Science a t the University of Illinois. His most recent relevant books are Policy Evaluation: Making Optimum Decisions (Praeger, 1982) and Public Policy: Goals, Means and Methods (St. Martin's, in press). His is the secretary-treasurer of the Policy Studies Organization. |
| |
| Abstract: | Rationalism in management science tends to mean attempting to determine the benefits and costs of the alternative decisions under consideration, and then picking the one that is best on benefits minus costs. Incrementalism tends to mean determining the decisions that actually get made under various circumstances, and then working with those existing decision rules as the basis for making adjustments to consider special or changing circumstances. Those two approaches can be well illustrated with the problem of attempting to determine what criminal sentences should be legislated to cover given crimes and prior records. The analysis tends to show that a rationalist approach is more effective in achieving societal goals when (1) alternative policies can be meaningfully related to those goals, and (2) existing decisions reflect individual goals which are generally in conflict with societal goals. An incrementalist approach is more effective when either of those criteria is absent, which is so when seeking to arrive at legislatively determined nondiscretionary criminal sentencing. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
