Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Sentencing Guidelines: Where We Are And How We Got Here (Panel Remarks), Frank O. Bowman Iii
Sentencing Guidelines: Where We Are And How We Got Here (Panel Remarks), Frank O. Bowman Iii
Faculty Publications
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines were created with two broad goals in mind. One, of course, was to reduce unjustified sentencing disparity, and that was accomplished in two ways. The first was to reduce the scope of front-end judicial discretion through the creation of guidelines. The second, which I think Tom Hutchison touched on,1 was to eliminate altogether the discretion of penological experts in the parole commission at the back end of the punishment process.
Assessing Proposals For Mandatory Procedural Protections For Sentencings Under The Guidelines, Steven D. Clymer
Assessing Proposals For Mandatory Procedural Protections For Sentencings Under The Guidelines, Steven D. Clymer
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
The federal sentencing guidelines have received sustained criticism from scholars, judges, and practitioners. Critics claim that the guidelines unwisely shift sentencing discretion from federal judges to prosecutors and probation officers; often mandate undeservedly harsh sentences; are complex, mechanistic, and bureaucratic; fail to achieve their goal of reducing sentencing disparity; and clog both district and appellate courts with litigation. Despite the attacks, some critics acknowledge that the guidelines will remain in force for the foreseeable future. While some nonetheless continue to urge abolition, others propose less ambitious reform, including enhancing the procedural protections available to criminal defendants at sentencing. Recommendations include …
Completing The Sentencing Revolution: Reconsidering Sentencing Procedure In The Guidelines Era, Frank O. Bowman Iii
Completing The Sentencing Revolution: Reconsidering Sentencing Procedure In The Guidelines Era, Frank O. Bowman Iii
Faculty Publications
The central innovation of the guidelines sentencing revolution has been the creation of a regime in which facts other than those required for conviction have necessary consequences at sentencing. In days of yore, judges mulling a sentence were entitled to receive information from virtually any source on virtually any subject, but they were never obliged to pass public judgment on the truth or falsity of what they heard because no finding of fact could constrain their discretion to set a sentence anywhere within the boundaries set by statutory maxima and minima. No more. The project of the original United States …