Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Skeptic's Guide To Information Sharing At Sentencing, Ryan W. Scott
The Skeptic's Guide To Information Sharing At Sentencing, Ryan W. Scott
Ryan W. Scott
The “information sharing” model, a leading method of structuring judicial discretion at the sentencing stage of criminal cases, has attracted broad support from scholars and judges. Under this approach, sentencing judges should have access to a robust body of information, including written opinions and statistics, about previous sentences in similar cases. Armed with that information, judges can conform their sentences to those of their colleagues or identify principled reasons for distinguishing them, reducing inter-judge disparity and promoting rationality in sentencing law. This Article takes a skeptical view, arguing that information sharing suffers from three fundamental weaknesses as an alternative to …
Information Sharing In A Common Law Of Sentencing: A Skeptic's Guide, Ryan W. Scott
Information Sharing In A Common Law Of Sentencing: A Skeptic's Guide, Ryan W. Scott
Ryan W. Scott
For decades, prominent scholars and judges have called for the development of a “common law of sentencing” in the United States. One strand of scholarship stresses the information sharing function of the common law: sentencing judges need access to a body of written opinions that reveals how other courts have handled similar cases. The idea is that, fueled by better information, case-by-case common law reasoning will promote inter-judge consistency and rationality in sentencing law. This Article takes a skeptical view, identifying three sets of challenges for an information-sharing approach. First, there are daunting information-collection challenges. A healthy common law depends …
Inter-Judge Sentencing Disparity After Booker: A First Look, Ryan W. Scott
Inter-Judge Sentencing Disparity After Booker: A First Look, Ryan W. Scott
Ryan W. Scott
A central purpose of the Sentencing Reform Act was to reduce inter-judge sentencing disparity, driven not by legitimate differences between offenders and offense conduct, but by the philosophy, politics, or biases of the sentencing judge. The federal Sentencing Guidelines, despite their well-recognized deficiencies, succeeded in reducing that form of unwarranted disparity. But in a series of decisions from 2005 to 2007, the Supreme Court rendered the Guidelines advisory (Booker), set a highly deferential standard for appellate review (Gall), and explicitly authorized judges to reject the policy judgments of the Sentencing Commission (Kimbrough). Since then, the Commission has received extensive anecdotal …
In Search Of The Booker Revolution, Ryan W. Scott
In Search Of The Booker Revolution, Ryan W. Scott
Ryan W. Scott
In 2005, the Supreme Court in United States v. Booker rendered the United States Sentencing Guidelines advisory. Arriving after eighteen years of complex and mandatory sentencing rules, the decision initially was heralded as revolutionary, both by critics and defenders of the federal Guidelines. But subsequent reports by the Sentencing Commission have shown few signs of a Booker revolution, revealing surprisingly minor changes. The existing research on post-Booker sentencing is incomplete, however, because it has not examined the response of individual judges to the decision. That omission is critical, given that the reduction of inter-judge disparity was the central purpose of …