Forty Years of American Sentencing Guidelines
What Have We Learned
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11348956 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Richard S Frase (University of Minnesota System, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 48 |
| Pages | 79-135 |
| Publication date | 2019-05-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Crime and Justice (BOOK_SERIES) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0192-3234 • E-ISSN: 2153-0416 |
| Publisher | University of Chicago Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1086/701503 |
| OpenAlex | W2914274494 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 16 |
| References cited | 15 |
Since 1980, 22 state and federal jurisdictions have adopted sentencing guidelines. Nineteen still have them. No two systems are alike. Experience suggests that any well-designed system requires five core features: a permanent, balanced, independent, and adequately funded sentencing commission; typical-case presumptive sentences and departure criteria; a hybrid sentencing theory that recognizes both retributive and crime control purposes; balance between the competing benefits of rules and discretion; and sentence recommendations informed by resource and demographic impact assessments. Balance is needed in terms of commission composition, between conflicting sentencing purposes, between rules and discretion, and between the influence of the commission, the legislature, and case-level actors. Guidelines proponents disagree about a number of important issues. Some relate to which crimes and sentencing issues should be regulated. Others concern the design details that determine how the system actually works. It is clear, however, that preguidelines regimes of unstructured, highly discretionary sentencing are unacceptable and that commission-drafted guidelines, endorsed by the American Bar Association and the American Law Institute, are the only successful sentencing reform model. In four decades, no competing model of comparable detail and scope has been seriously proposed
Balance (ability · Commission · Discretion · Judicial discretion · Judicial review · Legislature · Political science · Scope (computer science · Sentence · Sentencing guidelines · Computer Science · Crime Patterns and Interventions · Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis · Law · Psychology · Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Strafzumessung = Sentencing
Sentencing Guidelines and Commissions
Paying for the Past
Law or Authority
Judges on the Benchmark
Punishing for the Past (Sometimes)
Split Sentencing and the “Youth Discount” in Florida Criminal Courts
Discretion and Disagreement
What is theoretical support? Explanation as a central barometer in sentencing research
Uniformity and Discretion
How much does criminal history contribute to racial differences in arraignment outcomes
Sex, Age, Education, Marital Status, Number of Children, and Employment – the Impact of Extralegal Factors on Sentencing Disparities
Court Watching’s Promise
Critical Junctures and Path Dependence in Sentencing Policy
Drug overdose death rates and criminal sentencing of federal drug offenders in the United States
Fines, Fees, and Families
Making the Punishment Fit the Crime
Sentencing for Multiple Crimes
What Explains Persistent Racial Disproportionality in Minnesota’s Prison and Jail Populations
Structuring Sentencing
Sentencing Reform in the Other Washington
Prior Record Enhancements at Sentencing
Socioeconomic Disparities Under Determinate Sentencing Systems
| Unique citing works | 16 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2,29 |
| Citation span | 2019 - 2026 (8) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 16 |