Law Commons^™

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 …

Appellate Review Of Sentences: Reconsidering Deference, Michael O'Hear

Michael O'Hear

For the past three decades, the national debate on sentencing policy has focused on the strengths and weaknesses of mandatory guidelines, with guidelines proponents arguing that unfettered judicial discretion at sentencing violates rule-of-law values. However, the number of states with mandatory guidelines, never a majority, has been declining in recent years, and even the federal system switched from mandatory to advisory guidelines in 2005. The trend away from mandatory guidelines has prompted renewed interest in the potential for appellate review of sentences to address rule-of-law concerns. But the appellate courts themselves have long resisted robust review on the ground that …

Why March To A Uniform Beat?: Adding Honesty And Proportionality To The Individualized Tunes Of Federal Sentencing, Jelani Jefferson Exum

Jelani Jefferson Exum

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines were initially created to increase uniformity in sentencing by diminishing the influence of individual judges’ biases in the sentencing determination. However, now that the Guidelines have been rendered advisory by the Supreme Court in United States v. Booker , and circuit courts have been directed to review sentences for “unreasonableness”, most of the Supreme Court’s attention has been focused on ensuring the preservation of uniformity, rather than recognizing the continued importance of bias reduction. The assumption, it seems, is that once uniformity in sentencing is achieved then the potential of judicial bias has been erased. However, …

Criminal Forfeiture Procedure In 2009: A Survey Of Developments In The Case Law, Stefan D. Cassella

Stefan D Cassella

This article collects all of the cases decided in the past year dealing with the procedure for incorporating asset forfeiture in a federal criminal case, including the order of forfeiture in the defendant's sentence, and resolving the claims of third parties.

Debacle: How The Supreme Court Has Mangled American Sentencing Law And How Justice Sotomayor Might Help Fix It, Frank O. Bowman

Frank O. Bowman III

This Article argues that the line of Supreme Court Sixth Amendment jury right cases that began with McMillan v. Pennsylvania in 1986, crescendoed in Blakely v. Washington and United States v. Booker in 2004-2005, and continues in 2009 in cases such as Oregon v. Ice, has been a colossal judicial failure. First, the Court has failed to provide a logically coherent, constitutionally based answer to the fundamental question of what limits the Constitution places on the roles played by the institutional actors in the criminal justice system. It failed to recognize that defining, adjudicating and punishing crimes implicates both the …

“Taking Lives: How The United States Has Violated The International Covenant Of Civil And Political Rights By Sentencing Juveniles To Life Without Parole”, Marina A. Magnuson

Marina A Magnuson

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Roper v. Simmons, which outlawed death sentences for juveniles, several human rights organizations have begun to question the legality of life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders. I will explore the issue of life sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders and how they violate specific articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The United States ratified the ICCPR in 1992. However, it reserved the right, in exceptional circumstances, to treat juveniles as adults.

My comment will begin with a brief discussion of the …

Shaping Modern Sentencing: Three Giants, Steven Chanenson, Mark Miller

Steven L. Chanenson

No abstract provided.

The Mercy Of Judges As An Expression Of Natural Law, Mark Osler

Mark Osler

Even though there are strong personal incentives against it, federal judges abandon the sentencing guidelines in about one-third of all cases. Shockingly, when they sentence outside of the range, 96% of the time the sentence is below the range rather than above. The author argues that this tendancy can be seen as a natural law impulse towards mercy, and one that ultimately will undermine any limitation on sentencing discretion in the form of guidelines.

The Next Era Of Sentencing Reform ... Revisited, Steven Chanenson, Mark Bergstrom, Frank Dermody, Jordan Hyatt

Steven L. Chanenson

No abstract provided.

Evidence-Based Sentencing: The Science Of Sentencing Policy And Practice, Richard Redding

Richard E. Redding

Sentencing is where much of the action is in criminal practice, particularly since ninety percent or more of cases never go to trial but are settled through plea bargains. Acting within the constraints of applicable presumptive or mandatory sentencing guidelines, probation officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges typically rely on their instincts and experience to fashion a sentence based upon the information available about the offense and offender. But relying upon gut instinct and experience is no longer sufficient. It may even be unethical – a kind of sentencing malpractice that produces sentencing recommendations and decisions that are neither transparent …

Extraordinary And Compelling: A Re-Examination Of The Justifications For Compassionate Release, William W. Berry Iii

William W Berry III

Federal law, unbeknownst to many, includes a provision that permits the immediate release of federal prisoners. This safety valve provision requires that the Director of the Bureau of Prisons make a motion on behalf of the prisoner in order to secure the prisoner's compassionate release. Far from being a veiled version of parole, this compassionate release provision is to be used only in circumstances deemed "extraordinary and compelling." While the Bureau of Prisons has read this language very narrowly for many years, considering only terminally ill inmates as candidates for compassionate release, the Sentencing Commission modified its Guideline commentary in …

No Rational Basis: The Pragmatic Case For Marijuana Law Reform, Eric Blumenson

Eric Blumenson

This article presents a critique of marijuana prohibition and suggests some alternative regulatory approaches that would be more productive and consonant with justice. Part I relies on a forty-year empirical record to demonstrate that (1) reliance on a law enforcement approach has aggravated rather than mitigated the risks involved with marijuana use, and (2) criminalization, which results in the arrest of more than 700,000 Americans annually for possession of any amount of marijuana, is an inhumane and destructive response to an act that almost 100 million Americans have committed. Part II assesses the relative merits of several alternative reform policies, …

Prosecutors And Evidence-Based Sentencing: Rewards, Risks, And Responsibilities, Steven Chanenson

Steven L. Chanenson

No abstract provided.

Revolution Or Evolution: Recent Developments In American Federal Criminal Sentencing, Steven L. Chanenson

Steven L. Chanenson

No abstract provided.

Slavery As Punishment: Original Public Meaning, Cruel And Unusual Punishment, And The Neglected Clause In The Thirteenth Amendment, Scott W. Howe

Scott W. Howe

Steadfast originalists agree that the original meaning of our constitution's language, once found, should be followed, even when it leads to unhappy outcomes. Yet, in a famous lecture in 1989, Justice Scalia, a leader in the modern originalist movement, cast doubt on the duty of fidelity to originalism. He asserted that the originalist judge can appropriately avoid outcomes that are "too bitter" either by deferring to precedent or by temporarily abandoning originalism. Ironically, libertarian and liberal originalists have been among the most dismissive of Justice Scalia's faint-heartedness. They contend that the problem is the narrow approach to originalism that Justice …

Fitting Punishment, Juliet P. Stumpf

Juliet P Stumpf

Proportionality is conspicuously absent from the legal framework for immigration sanctions. Immigration law relies on one sanction – deportation – as the ubiquitous penalty for any immigration violation. Neither the gravity of the violation nor the harm that results bears on whether deportation is the consequence for an immigration violation. Immigration law stands alone in the legal landscape in this respect. Criminal punishment incorporates proportionality when imposing sentences that are graduated based on the gravity of the offense; contract and tort law provide for damages that are graduated based on the harm to others or to society. This Article represents …