Forty years of american sentencing guidelines

What have we learned?

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationCrime and Justice
PublisherUniversity of Chicago Press
Pages79-135
Number of pages57
Edition1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Publication series

NameCrime and Justice
Number1
Volume48
ISSN (Print)0192-3234
ISSN (Electronic)2153-0416

Fingerprint

offense
reform model
jurisdiction
regime
Law
resources
experience

Cite this

Frase, R. S. (2019). Forty years of american sentencing guidelines: What have we learned? In Crime and Justice (1 ed., pp. 79-135). (Crime and Justice; Vol. 48, No. 1). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1086/701503

Forty years of american sentencing guidelines : What have we learned? / Frase, Richard S.

Crime and Justice. 1. ed. University of Chicago Press, 2019. p. 79-135 (Crime and Justice; Vol. 48, No. 1).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Frase, RS 2019, Forty years of american sentencing guidelines: What have we learned? in Crime and Justice. 1 edn, Crime and Justice, no. 1, vol. 48, University of Chicago Press, pp. 79-135. https://doi.org/10.1086/701503
Frase RS. Forty years of american sentencing guidelines: What have we learned? In Crime and Justice. 1 ed. University of Chicago Press. 2019. p. 79-135. (Crime and Justice; 1). https://doi.org/10.1086/701503
Frase, Richard S. / Forty years of american sentencing guidelines : What have we learned?. Crime and Justice. 1. ed. University of Chicago Press, 2019. pp. 79-135 (Crime and Justice; 1).
@inbook{b69602b0df0e42e09f28a94afcf5ac93,
title = "Forty years of american sentencing guidelines: What have we learned?",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Frase, {Richard S}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1086/701503",
language = "English (US)",
series = "Crime and Justice",
publisher = "University of Chicago Press",
number = "1",
pages = "79--135",
booktitle = "Crime and Justice",
edition = "1",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Forty years of american sentencing guidelines

T2 - What have we learned?

AU - Frase, Richard S

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061299501&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061299501&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1086/701503

DO - 10.1086/701503

M3 - Chapter

T3 - Crime and Justice

SP - 79

EP - 135

BT - Crime and Justice

PB - University of Chicago Press

ER -