JUDGING UNDER THE FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES

• Published in: Northwestern University law review Vol. 91; no. 4; pp. 1247 - 1283
• Main Authors: Stith, Kate, Cabranes, José A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Chicago Northwestern University (on behalf of School of Law) 01.07.1997
• Subjects: Cooperation; Court hearings & proceedings; Criminal records; Criminal sentences; Federal court decisions; Federal Courts; Federal legislation; Guidelines; Imprisonment; Indictments; Judges & magistrates; Judicial discretion; Jurisprudence; Law; Legal ethics; Parole & probation; Probation officers; Sentencing; State court decisions; Supreme Court decisions; Trials; United States; United States > US
• ISSN: 0029-3571

[...]both sentencing judges and appellate judges have been denied the opportunity to develop a principled sentencing jurisprudence. Federal parole policies required that most federal prisoners serve between one-third and two-thirds of their nominal-that is, judicially imposed-prison sentences.4 Mindful of the relevant parole parameters, the federal trial judge was able to exercise considerable control over the actual amount of prison time that would be served. [...]since the mid-1970s, when federal parole authorities issued their first set of parole guidelines,5 the impact of parole on the length of prison terms had arguably been more apparent than real. In the discretionary sentencing era, the officer's most important function was to prepare a presentence report for the judge, a copy of which (with the exception of a confidential sentencing recommendation to the judge) was provided to the prosecutor and to the defense prior to the sentencing hearing.6 In recent decades, a typical report included summaries of both the prosecutor's and the defendant's versions of the offense, information on the disposition of the cases of codefendants, and information on the application of the parole guidelines to the case at hand. "7 The final section of the report, not released to either the government or the defendant, contained the probation officer's recommendation to the judge of an appropriate sentence.8 The probation officer's major threshold recommendation, in many cases, dealt with the issue of whether the defendant should receive a prison sentence or probation.9 In the event that a period of imprisonment was recommended, the probation officer would suggest a particular term, based in part on the national sentencing statistics available for the offense in question, as well as on the officer's informed judgment.