21-6601.
Construction.
K.S.A. 21-6601 through 21-6629, and amendments thereto, shall be liberally construed to the end that persons convicted of crime shall be dealt with in accordance with their individual characteristics, circumstances, needs and potentialities as revealed by case studies; that dangerous offenders shall be correctively treated in custody for long terms as needed; and that other offenders shall be dealt with by probation, suspended sentence, fine or assignment to a community correctional services program whenever such disposition appears practicable and not detrimental to the needs of public safety and the welfare of the offender, or shall be committed for at least a minimum term within the limits provided by law.
History:
L. 2010, ch. 136, § 241; July 1, 2011.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case:
State v. Theurer, 337 P.3d 725 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Theurer, 337 P.3d 725 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 11× “” In the State’s view, this error is shown, in part, by the sentencing court’s citing and quoting from an inapplicable statute, K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-6601, at the beginning of its ruling.”
State v. Collins, 362 P.3d 1098 (Kan. 2015).
“21-5414 and the applicable provisions of the Kansas sentencing statutes, K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-6601 et seq. Interpretation of sentencing *474 statutes is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
State v. Dunham, 472 P.3d 604 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
“K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6601 reflects such a sentiment.”
State v. Klavetter, 494 P.3d 235 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 11× “K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6601 states general policy aims concerning sentencing, while more specific directives are included throughout the Kansas sentencing statutes.”
State v. White (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 11× “White contends the district court failed to heed the Kansas Legislature's broad policy pronouncements about punishment in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6601 and otherwise undervalued the mitigating factors he presented for lesser sentences.”
State v. McElroy (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 10× “PER CURIAM: Steven McElroy appeals his off-grid sentence, arguing the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a downward durational departure without considering K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6601. We find the district court's decision was within the discretion…”
State v. Williams (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 5× “21-6601 through 21-6629, and amendments thereto, shall be liberally construed to the end that persons convicted of crime shall be dealt with in accordance with their individual characteristics, circumstances, needs and potentialities as revealed by case studies; that dangerous…”
State v. Forrest (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 5× “Forrest contends the district court abused its discretion by failing to heed the Kansas Legislature's broad policy pronouncements about punishment in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6601. The statute provides: "K.”
State v. Rogers (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “DID THE DISTRICT COURT FAIL TO CONSIDER ARTICLE 66 SENTENCING GUIDANCE IN DENYING ROGERS' MOTION FOR DOWNWARD DEPARTURE? Rogers first argues the district court failed to apply the directives of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6601 when it sentenced him to long-term incarceration and failed…”
State v. Zachry (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
“8 Quoting K.S.A. 21-6601, Zachry reminds this court: "'[P]ersons convicted of crime shall be dealt with in accordance with their individual characteristics, circumstances, needs and potentialities as revealed by case studies; that dangerous offenders shall be correctively…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.