NCJ Number
144567
Journal
Yale Law Journal Volume: 101 Issue: 8 Dated: (June 1992) Pages: 1773-1794
Date Published
1992
Length
22 pages
Annotation
In highlighting key differences between how the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission went about their appointed tasks, this article argues that the processes by which sentencing guidelines are developed have important effects on both their content and viability.
Abstract
Three principles distinguish Minnesota's guidelines development from earlier, judicially developed sentencing guidelines and from the way in which the U.S. Sentencing Commission went about its work. First, Minnesota developed its guidelines through an open process that allowed all affected organizations and individuals to participate in discussions and to influence Commission decisionmaking. Second, Minnesota's guidelines are openly prescriptive; they implement normative policies to guide future sentencing, organized around an underlying philosophy of "just deserts." Third, Minnesota's commission interpreted an imprecise statutory directive to mean that its guidelines had to work without overcrowding the State's prisons. These three principles -- open process, prescriptive guidelines, and recognition of prison capacity constraints -- are discussed in detail. The author argues that the U.S. Sentencing Commission's avoidance of these principles compounded its problems with guideline development. 54 footnotes