NCJ Number
136368
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 55 Issue: 4 Dated: (December 1991) Pages: 45-48
Date Published
1991
Length
4 pages
Annotation
The congressional intent with the Federal sentencing guidelines to implement a rational sentencing system based on uniform and proportional sentences has not been realized.
Abstract
Congress directed consideration of the nature and circumstances of the offense and the four basic purposes of sentencing (punish, deter, protect, and rehabilitate). The U.S. Sentencing Commission was specifically directed to consider typical offender characteristics such as age, education, vocational skills, employment, family ties, mental and emotional conditions, and alcohol and drug abuse, and to take these characteristics into account to the extent they are relevant to sentencing. The Commission imposed on Federal courts a detailed, technical system that seeks uniformity, but produces interpretive disparity and control by the executive instead of the judicial branch. The sentencing guidelines are also problematic in terms of the competence of counsel. In addition, with the advent of the guidelines and sentencing appeals, Federal defender offices are growing. Further, probation officers appear to be only guardians of the guidelines rather than being responsible for evaluating human beings. 3 footnotes