Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
“Loss” Revisited: A Defense Of The Centerpiece Of The Federal Economic Crime Sentencing Guideline, Frank. O. Bowman Iii
“Loss” Revisited: A Defense Of The Centerpiece Of The Federal Economic Crime Sentencing Guideline, Frank. O. Bowman Iii
Missouri Law Review
I was, for better or worse, one of the principal architects of Section 2B1.1 in its consolidated 2001 form. Over time, I have become a pointed critic both of errors we made in 2001, and of some of the ways the Sentencing Commission has since amended Section 2B1.1. Nonetheless, I still support the basic structure of Section 2B1.1 and its central component – scaling offense seriousness in large measure based on the economic loss caused or intended by the defendant. In particular, I remain convinced that the definition of “loss” adopted in 2001 remains fundamentally sound. Recently, the Missouri Law …
Reply To Professor Bowman’S “Loss” Revisited, Daniel S. Guarnera
Reply To Professor Bowman’S “Loss” Revisited, Daniel S. Guarnera
Missouri Law Review
Based on Professor Bowman’s response article, “Loss” Revisited: A Defense of the Centerpiece of the Federal Economic Crime Sentencing Guideline, I am gratified to find that he and I share much common ground. In fact, I believe our respective positions are closer in many ways than his article suggests. I will use this Response primarily to clarify what I see as the key areas of disagreement about the proper role of loss – and, particularly, intended loss – in the economic crime Guidelines. I will then offer a few brief comments about possible directions for reform