NCJ Number
231601
Journal
Boston College Law Review Volume: 51 Issue: 3 Dated: May 2010 Pages: 719-768
Date Published
May 2010
Length
50 pages
Annotation
This article argues that the prior-conviction sentencing enhancements that defendants can receive in, and only in, illegal reentry cases are unjust, unjustified, and unreasonable.
Abstract
The U.S. Sentencing Commission created the enhancement through a perfunctory process that significantly altered sentencing for illegal reentry, shifting the focus at sentencing from the illegal reentry offense to the status of the defendant's worst prior conviction. This results in a scheme whereby the sentence length received by many illegal reentry defendants is based on their previous offenses, sometimes committed many years ago, rather than the conduct at issue in the current prosecution. Although this enhancement is unusual in a sentencing guideline, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has never provided a justification for it, and there is no self-evident rationale for it. The enhancement also undermines the U.S. Congress' commitment to reducing unwarranted sentencing disparity and its specific recommendation to reduce sentences that are inappropriately harsh for illegal reentry. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker (2005), Federal courts were powerless to counter the Sentencing Commission's indiscriminate decisionmaking. In the Booker decision, however, the Supreme Court held that the sentencing guidelines are not mandatory, such that courts may now evaluate the soundness of the guidelines for a case before the court before imposing a sentence. The author of this article recommends that Federal courts refuse to follow the prior-conviction sentencing enhancements in illegal reentry cases, because they lack justification on the basis of deterrence, are unreasonable in objective, and fail to meet the "just deserts" criterion for justice. 290 notes