The Reason Behind the Rules: Finding and Using the Philosophy of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

By Hofer, Paul J.; Allenbaugh, Mark H. | American Criminal Law Review, Winter 2003 | Go to article overview

The Reason Behind the Rules: Finding and Using the Philosophy of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.


Hofer, Paul J., Allenbaugh, Mark H., American Criminal Law Review


  I. INTRODUCTION
     A. Finding and Using the Federal Philosophy of Sentencing
     B. How the Guidelines' Philosophy Got Lost
        1. The Critics Speak
        2. The Root of the Problem
        3. The Original Commission's Compromises and
           Accommodations
 II. THE PROJECT OF RATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION
     A. The Consequences of Philosophy-Free Guidelines
        1. The Empty Idea of Disparity
        2. Missing Criteria for Evaluation
        3. Weakened Rational Decision-making
        4. Missing Tools for Legal Reasoning
     B. The Method of Rational Reconstruction
     C. Sources of the Guidelines' Philosophy
        1. The SRA and Mistretta
        2. The Guidelines and Commentary
        3. General Justifying Aims Versus Specific Reasons
        4. United States v. Koon: "The Structure and Theory of the
           Guidelines as a Whole"
III. IDENTIFYING THE GUIDELINES' SENTENCING PHILOSOPHY
     A. Modified Just Desert
     B. Rehabilitation
     C. Incapacitation
     D. Deterrence
     E. Just Desert
        1. The Components of Offense Seriousness
        2. Harm is Central
        3. Culpability Is Considered
     F. The Best Account of the Rules as a Whole
 IV. WHAT IS A PHILOSOPHY GOOD FOR?
     A. Guideline Criticism
        1. Culpability Receives Relatively Little Weight
        2. The Drug Trafficking Guideline's Internal Incoherence
        3. Congressional Directives and Incoherence
     B. Guideline Interpretation and Application
     C. Guideline Departure
        1. What Kind of Rules?
        2. What Kind of "Heartland"?
        3. Reducing True Disparity Through Departure
  V. CONCLUSION

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Finding and Using the Federal Philosophy of Sentencing

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was intended to eliminate unwarranted sentencing disparity by establishing a "comprehensive and consistent statement of the Federal law of sentencing, setting forth the purposes to be served." (1) As described in the exhaustive legislative history that accompanied the Act (2) (the SRA), Congress believed that "[f]or the first time, Federal law will assure that the Federal criminal justice system will adhere to a consistent sentencing philosophy. Further, each participant in the system will know what purpose is to be achieved by the sentence in each particular case." (3) Despite this seemingly clear mandate, a common complaint about the primary product of the SRA, the federal sentencing guidelines (the Guidelines), is that it fails to express a coherent philosophy of punishment. The United States Sentencing Commission was created to develop the Guidelines, (4) and was given the job of establishing sentencing priorities and deciding how the tensions among the four purposes of punishment listed in the federal statutes should be resolved. (5) But members of the Commission could not agree on which purposes were most important. In the end, they explicitly declined to articulate a philosophy of sentencing that could explain the Guidelines' priorities and which purpose of sentencing should control in cases where the purposes conflict. (6)

Given the Commission's silence regarding purposes, judges applying the Guidelines are given only a few unsatisfactory options. If the relevant guidelines are unambiguous, judges can apply the rules mechanically, even if it is unclear what purpose, if any, justifies the sentence. (7) Obviously, this is an uncomfortable form of judging, from which many have rebelled, particularly when the sentence required by the Guidelines conflicts with the judge's own sense of justice. (8)

Mechanical application of the Guidelines also neglects a crucial component of the Guideline system: the judge's departure power. The SRA provides for departure from the recommended Guideline range if the judge finds "that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the [G]uidelines that should result in a sentence different from that described. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Reason Behind the Rules: Finding and Using the Philosophy of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.