U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in Perspective: A Theoretical Background and Overview (From U.S. Sentencing Guidelines: Implications for Criminal Justice, P 3-18, 1989, Dean J. Champion, ed. -- See NCJ-121135)

• NCJ Number: 121136
• Author(s): K A Knapp; D J Hauptly
• Date Published: 1989
• Length: 16 pages
• Sale Source: Praeger Publishers
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This chapter examines and contrasts the development of the U.S. sentencing guidelines and State sentencing reform regarding the sentencing reform's relation to substantive criminal law, the prosecutorial role, correctional resources, and guideline implementation.

Abstract

The Federal Sentencing Commission chose to adopt a rudimentary, quasi-elemental offense methodology instead of building on the increasingly sophisticated usual case methodology used by State commissions. Ancillary revisions necessary with the retention of an elemental approach include the development of independent factfinders to enhance judicial sentencing independence and address the proliferation of erratic sentencing maxima. Under the Federal sentencing system, the prosecutor controls not only the statutory maximum available, but also the base offense value and all aggravating circumstances. This enhanced prosecutorial power cannot be justified. Despite the apparent unconcern with correctional costs during the development of the Federal sentencing guidelines, the Federal Commission adopted an innovative methodology to understate the guidelines' contribution to prison population projections. Since sentencing authority has never been the exclusive province of any government branch, commissions which aim to structure sentencing discretion have been comprised of persons from more than one governmental branch. Under State constitutions as well as the U.S. Constitution, such a structure inherently raises questions about the separation of powers. 8 notes.