117 Ill. App. 2d 344 - People v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * when there is a substantial spread between the minimum and the maximum of a sentence the inmate in the institution can be directed toward academic or vocational training, and favorable prospective parole consideration operates as quite a catalyst. The existence of a substantial spread between the minimum and the maximum ensures the availability to the defendant of supervision after incarceration. The principle of indeterminacy of sentence necessarily leaves to the professionals in the behavioral sciences the determination of the optimum date for release. The court, in fixing the maximum, determines the total length of possible incarceration.” 253 N.E.2d at 555-556 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 35 Ill. App. 3d 342 - People v. Allen · Duffy v. State

2. ““The authority to reduce the punishment imposed by the trial court should not be used as a form of judicial clemency nor should it be used by an appeHate tribunal to substitute its judgment as to the appropriate penalty for the judgment of the trial judge. If, however, such authority is utilized only when a sentence exceeds the statutorily authorized sentence, or where a sentence is clearly so excessive as to constitute a great departure from the spirit and purpose of the law or is oppressive, then we wiH have, by indirection, condoned disparate sentencing and thereby frustrated the intent and promise of appeHate review of sentences incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Thornton

3. ““In order to preserve the principle of indeterminancy, the Court should not be authorized to impose a minimum sentence which exceeds one-third of the maximum sentence actually imposed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 132 Ill. App. 2d 685 - People v. Smythe