RATIONALISM VERSUS INCREMENTALISM IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING

Stuart Nagel

Review of Policy Research, 1982, vol. 2, issue 2, 224-229

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.

Date: 1982
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1982.tb00667.x

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:revpol:v:2:y:1982:i:2:p:224-229

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.wiley.com/bw/subs.asp?ref=1541-132x

Access Statistics for this article

Review of Policy Research is currently edited by Christopher Gore

More articles in Review of Policy Research from Policy Studies Organization Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().