THE REALITY OF FEDERAL SENTENCING: BEYOND THE CRITICISM

Because so much was expected of this radical new concept, it was predictable that a system born out of such divergent aspirations would ultimately violate the philosophy of a certain segment of its initial advocates. Because our previous system was flawed by unwarranted disparity and unequal sentenc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inNorthwestern University law review Vol. 91; no. 4; pp. 1574 - 1598
Main Author Whiteside, Thomas N
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chicago Northwestern University (on behalf of School of Law) 01.07.1997
Subjects
Annual reports
Cocaine
Court hearings & proceedings
Criminal justice
Criminal law
Criminal sentences
Criticism
Drug abuse
Drug trafficking
Evidence
Federal court decisions
Federal legislation
Fines & penalties
Guidelines
Judges & magistrates
Judicial discretion
Narcotics
Supreme Court decisions
United States > US
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Because so much was expected of this radical new concept, it was predictable that a system born out of such divergent aspirations would ultimately violate the philosophy of a certain segment of its initial advocates. Because our previous system was flawed by unwarranted disparity and unequal sentencing of similarly situated defendants, legislation to introduce sentencing reform at the federal level was signed into law by President Reagan in 1984.3 That law authorized the creation of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, an independent agency in the judicial branch of the government charged with developing and monitoring sentencing policies for the federal courts. [...]today's probation officers must not only understand the Guidelines and statutory issues, but must also understand the case law and its application to various factual scenarios. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission's 1995 Annual Report, the median sentence for drug trafficking in 1995 was 60 months.44 This figure does not include the extreme sentences for the least and most serious offenders. [...]probation officers and attorneys have identified the process of amending the Guidelines as the greatest area in which the potential for error in application exists. Since the original Guidelines took effect, there have been 536 amendments, with a significant number of them containing multiple changes.86 By law, the Sentencing Commission is required to submit proposed changes to the Guidelines by May 1 of each year, and the changes become law by the first day of the following November unless disapproved by Congress.87 To prevent ex post facto application, amendments to the Guidelines that are more punitive than those in existence when the offense of conviction was committed are not to be applied.88 Therefore, users of the Guidelines must, in some cases, compare the old Guidelines to the new to see which one is appropriate.
ISSN:0029-3571