NCJ Number
136364
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 55 Issue: 4 Dated: (December 1991) Pages: 16,20-25
Date Published
1991
Length
7 pages
Annotation
The fairness of Federal sentencing guidelines is questioned, and sentencing reform recommendations are offered.
Abstract
The author believes that the guidelines have created more sentencing disparity than ever; this disparity is concealed because decisions that truly affect sentences are not being made in the open courtroom, but rather in the offices of the Sentencing Commission, prosecutors, probation officers, and police departments. Judges have their own reasons for disliking the guidelines. Some see them as constituting a time-consuming, inefficient system that is adversely affecting the dockets of Federal trial and appellate courts. Others view them as causing a stressful contest in which conscientious judges spend hours of thought and research in attempts to find lawful ways around unfairness and irrationality issues. In addition, the guidelines give Federal prosecutors significant power to control sentences. Several sentencing reform recommendations are offered: reaffirm the principle that the exercise of legislatively established sentencing discretion is a judicial power and responsibility; establish an offense-of-conviction model; establish a range of permissible sentences for each crime within which range the judge can fix the penalty; require sentencing judges to document the rationale for their sentences; make available to sentencing judges data showing the average sentence imposed in similar cases; recognize the right of appeal; and continue a policy of determinate sentences while providing a larger range of parole options. 4 footnotes