For many practitioners who experienced the long period when the mandatory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines exerted near total dominion over the field of federal sentencing, and who greeted with cautious optimism the guidelines’ post-Booker demotion to their current advisory role, there is an abiding concern that this era will not last. A wary eye is trained on developments in the world of federal sentencing, with nagging worries about what they portend for the future. In this context, this article discusses the recent public release of federal sentencing data on a judge-specific basis, and a related report, issued March 5, 2012, bearing the headline “Surprising Judge-to-Judge Variations Documented in Federal Sentencing,” which has received significant media attention.1
One of the primary motivations for the promulgation of the guidelines pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was the goal of eliminating unwarranted sentencing disparities among similar defendants found guilty of similar criminal conduct. The concept is much more easily stated than applied. Determining which defendants are “similar” and what is “similar” criminal conduct is at the heart of the sentencing process.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
