concurrence">McMILLIAN, Judge

(concurring).

While I concur in the results reached as to the determination of guilty, I do not concur in either penalty assessed. Nor can I accept, without doing a disservice to the court, the public, and the defendant, the regurgitation of an overworked cliche that a sentence fixed within statutory limits is not excessive or cruel and unusual. If such an assumption was ever valid, it would seem that in the enlightened self-interest of society it should be given its long overdue burial. Moreover, any sentence of such a length which is neither necessary to protect the legitimate ends of society nor useful in terms of rehabilitation is not only excessive but also wasteful of tax dollars and limits resources available to correctional authorities.

I would strongly urge my brethren to consider and adopt the ABA Standards on Appellate Review of Sentences — to the end that our court may:

“1.2 . . .

“(i) . . . correct the sentence which is excessive in length, having regard to the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, and the protection of the public interest;

“(ii) . . . facilitate the rehabilitation of the offender by affording him an opportunity to assert grievances he may have regarding his sentence;

“(iii) promote respect for law by correcting abuses of the sentencing power and by increasing the fairness of the sentencing process; and

“(iv) promote the development and application of criteria for sentencing which are both rational and just.”

In the ABA Standards, Sentencing Alternative and Procedures, Comments § 2.-1(f), p. 57, it is reported that the most recent available statistics reveal “[M]ore than one-half of the adult felony offenders sentenced to State prisons in 1960 were committed for maximum terms of five years or more; almost one-third were sentenced to terms of at least ten years. And more than one-half of the prisoners confined in State institutions in 1960 had been sentenced to maximum terms as high as ten years.” In England sentences in the range of twenty to thirty years “are now entirely exceptional . . . and are generally disapproved.” Comment, 4 British J.Crim. 608 (1964). Sentences in excess of five years are rare in most European countries. See Johnson, Crime, Correction and Society 409 (1964).

The Amer. Law Institute’s Model Penal Code (P.O.D.1962) provides sentences for ordinary terms and extended terms — ordinary terms, except in capital offenses, range from 1 year to 10 years; whereas, for extended terms, from 1 year to 20 years. The National Council on Crime and Delinquency’s Model Sentencing Act (1963) provides for ordinary offenders— no' minimum and up to 10 years, except murder first degree which carries a penalty of life; and dangerous offenders, no minimum, up to 30 years. In extreme cases the ABA Standards, Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures, § 3.1(c)(i) provides for a twenty-five year maximum.

*702In my opinion, a good sentence should call for the minimum amount of custody or confinement which is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant. Stated another way, the best correctional system should attempt to divert as many offenders as possible out of the system; or, those offenders found to be in need of correctional processes or therapy should be detained for the minimum time possible; or, those offenders found to be dangerous should be held on to as long as possible, but not in excess of thirty years.

In the instant case, I would affirm the conviction, but reverse and remand the case for a hearing on the sentencing aspects. And I would require the trial judge to make findings as to whether or not the defendant is a dangerous offender, or persistent offender, or a professional criminal —and to set forth his reasons for the particular sentence to be imposed, not in excess of thirty years. See Model Sentencing Act, supra, Article III, §§ 5 and 6.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress