Every year, the futures of countless individuals are determined by the American criminal justice system. Today, the outcome of such cases are becoming more and more out of the hands of individual judges. Instead, federal and state legislators are now using regulations and guidelines to directly deter crime and punish offenders. However, there continues to be much debate whether or not this approach is actually improving the system. Consequently, let us take a closer look at sentencing guidelines and mandatory sentencing.
"Sentencing guidelines are structured sentences, based on measures of offense severity and criminal history, to determine the length of the term of imprisonment" (The drug trade,2004-2005, p. 191). Fundamentally, these guidelines utilize a combination of two sentencing styles-presumptive and minimum mandatory-to create sentences that are generally less biased and more consistent and offense appropriate. Sentencing guidelines have proved exceptionally useful to even individuals that are not judges because they offer a coherent basis for calculating the likely sentencing outcomes for various types of criminal cases. Please note, however, that sentencing guidelines do not share the same level of influence in every jurisdiction. The sentencing guidelines of some states are binding, while others are only meant to be a sentencing aid, while still others give judges to make upward or downward adjustments under special circumstances (The drug trade,2004-2005, p. 191). The federal sentencing guidelines, which were implemented in 1987, are binding on all federal courts, requiring all federal judges to dispense sentences that fall within the specific ranges outlined in the guidelines. Judges are only allowed to consider departures from these guidelines for a few special reasons identified by the U.S. Sentencing Commission ("Recent legislation," 2003, p. 751-752).
Related to sentencing guidelines are mandatory sentences. "Mandatory sentences simply establish a minimum sanction that must be served upon conviction for a criminal offense" (The drug trade,2004-2005, p. 198). Essentially, mandatory sentences require every individual to receive the same punishment for a similar offense, regardless of how much a judge may object to the sentence. Three-strikes laws (most notorious in California) and truth-in-sentencing laws are both excellent examples of approaches to mandatory sentencing. Because of the severe restrictions it puts on judges, the majority of judges (state and federal) oppose mandatory sentencing. (The drug trade,2004-2005, p. 198-200). Many legal experts see one aspect of mandatory sentencing, mandatory minimum sentences, especially detrimental to the American justice system. Ultimately, they argue that every person should have the opportunity to have his or her unique situation surrounding the offense considered during sentencing. However, mandatory sentencing gives judges very little leeway when deciding on an appropriate sentence. In fact, federal judges admit that on numerous occasions the federal sentencing guidelines have led to sentences that they felt were totally inappropriate for the defendant's crimes. For example like federal judge Paul G. Cassell of Utah was forced to sentence a man to prison for over 55 years for simply carrying a gun for protection during a couple minor drug deals, while during another case, he was only able to sentence a second-degree murderer, who killed his elderly victim with a savage blow to her head, to 22 years incarceration (Cassell, 2007). Despite this unsettling argument, advocates of mandatory sentencing insist that the federal sentencing guidelines have created "a stronger, fairer, more uniform, and more honest determinate sentencing system" (Roper, 2007, Mandatory Sentencing section), which has led to drastic declines in crime rates across the U.S. (Roper, 2007).
As I mentioned earlier, federal judges are only allowed to deviate from the federal sentencing guidelines for a few special circumstances determined by the U.S. Sentencing Commission or if the judge feels there is a serious mitigating or aggravating situation surrounding a crime that is not adequately addressed by the federal sentencing guidelines ("Recent legislation," 2003, p. 753). These departures can either be downward (mitigating factors) or upward (aggravating factors) depending how the factors make the severity of the crime compared to average cases. For example, a crime committed using a deadly weapon can cause an upward departure, while an offense committed out of necessity (i.e., a starving family) might motivate the judge to allow a lesser sentence (The drug trade,2004-2005, p. 197). Obviously, many judges saw sentencing departures as a way to makes sentences more fair for those cases they felt did not fit mandatory sentencing. However, because several areas within the U.S. were not using departures as willingly as others, Congress passed stricter legislation to make it more difficult for judges to depart from the federal sentencing guidelines. One of the most significant changes caused by this legislation was federal judges are now required to create a written order detailing exactly why they thought it necessary to depart from the sentencing guidelines ("Recent legislation," 2003, p. 753-754; U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2003, Findings section). Overall, if departures are used appropriately, they can assist federal judges in appropriately addressing cases that are too unique or infrequent for the sentencing guidelines to properly handle, thus making federal sentencing even more uniform and fair (U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2003). On the other hand, though, some people criticize departures because they can also produce less fairness since the federal sentencing guidelines allow downward departures for those defendants that act as informants (known as "substantial assistance"), putting lesser offenders at a disadvantage since they have less (or no) connections to other criminals (The drug trade,2004-2005, p. 197; "Recent legislation," 2003, p. 753). Finally, departures can also bring harmful bias to the courtroom since some judges have been known to deliberately or unknowingly use departures in unequal ways, basing their judgment largely on such things as the defendant's race or gender (Kramer & Ulmer, 2002).
As we can see through both mandatory sentencing and departures, there are both advantages and disadvantages of strict application of the federal sentencing guidelines. Strict application allows the court system to weed out the majority of judges' personal bias, but in doing so, it does not give judges enough room to adjust their sentences for cases that clearly do not fit these guidelines. In contrast, a more loose application of the federal sentencing guidelines gives judges the chance to give special consideration to abnormal cases, so offenders that are extra violent receive the punishment that they deserve, while others that are basically good do not receive an unnecessary prison term. Therefore, despite the disadvantage of substantial assistance, I still feel that disadvantages of strict application outweigh the benefits. Although I understand why legislators wanted to create uniform sentencing guidelines, I also realize that each criminal case is a little different and some cases are so unique that it is unfair to everyone involved if these cases are treated exactly the same as the average case. Furthermore, I am not a huge fan of mandatory sentencing anyway because I am not convinced that it actually deters crime like supporters insist. I personally know several individuals that have been in and out of Pennsylvania state prisons innumerable times for the similar drug offenses. Each time they get out of prison, the exact same day they go back to selling and/or buying illegal drugs. Their incarceration never addresses the underlying causes of their behavior, and they always have the mentality that they are smarter and more cautious now, so they will not get caught again. Consequently, I cannot see any type of incarceration, even if the sentence length is broadcasted everywhere, will adequately deter the majority of crime.
References:
Cassell, P. G. (2007, June 26). Mandatory minimum sentences: Statement of Paul G. Cassell Judge United States District Court District of Utah. In FDCH congressional testimony. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from Colorado Technical University Online Library, Articles & Books, MasterFILE Premier: https://ctuonline.edu
The drug trade and the American criminal justice system [Custom ed.]. (2004-2005). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Kramer, J. H., & Ulmer, J. T. (2002). Downward departures for serious violent offenders: Local court "corrections" to Pennsylvania's sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40(4), 897-932. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from Colorado Technical University Online Library, Articles & Books, Academic Search Premier: https://ctuonline.edu
Recent legislation. (2003, December). Harvard Law Review, 117(2), 751-758. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from Colorado Technical University Online Library, Articles & Books, Academic Search Premier: https://ctuonline.edu
Roper, R. B. (2007, June 26). Mandatory minimum sentences: Statement of Richard B. Roper United States Attorney Northern District of Texas. In FDCH congressional testimony. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from Colorado Technical University Online Library, Articles & Books, MasterFILE Premier: https://ctuonline.edu
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2003, October). Report to Congress: Downward departures from the federal sentencing guidelines. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from http://www.ussc.gov/departrpt03/departrpt03.pdf
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2007, September 18). Guidelines manual. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from http://www.ussc.gov/2007guid/GL2007.pdf
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2008, May 1). Supplement to the 2007 guidelines manual. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://www.ussc.gov/2007guid/20080501_Supplement_to_2007_Guidelines.pdf
1 comment