NCJ Number
138591
Journal
U.C. Davis Law Review Volume: 25 Issue: 3 Dated: (Spring 1992) Pages: 571-586
Date Published
1992
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This article discusses how the Federal sentencing guidelines strike an appropriate balance in competing considerations and provide benefits superior to the previous sentencing system.
Abstract
Congress' objectives in authorizing sentencing guidelines were to ensure that court sentences would not be unduly and unpredictably modified by parole and "good time" credits, to provide uniform sentencing for similar offenders who have committed similar offenses, and to bring proportionality to sentencing by providing appropriately different sentences for criminal conduct according to its severity. In achieving these objectives, the U.S. Sentencing Commission had to balance competing considerations in the areas of proportionality versus uniformity, real offense versus charge offense sentencing, the use of a defendant's prior criminal history, the use of past-practice data, the consideration of individual offender characteristics, and departures from the guidelines. In achieving an appropriate balance in sentencing concerns, the guidelines have structured and limited, but not eliminated, judicial discretion in sentencing. Overall, the guidelines provide sentencing that is fairer, more honest, and more predictable than in the past. 29 footnotes