TITLE

ADVISORY SENTENCING AND THE FEDERALIZATION OF CRIME: SHOULD FEDERAL SENTENCING JUDGES CONSIDER THE DISPARITY BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL SENTENCES UNDER BOOKER?

AUTHOR(S)
DeMaso, Christine
PUB. DATE
December 2006
SOURCE
Columbia Law Review;Dec2006, Vol. 106 Issue 8, p2095
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
In 2005, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Booker that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were unconstitutional. The Court corrected this constitutional defect by declaring the Guidelines advisory and instructing appellate courts to review sentences for "reasonableness." The question of what is reasonable for a district court to consider while sentencing a defendant is a critical one. Recently the federal courts have begun to grapple with whether it is reasonable for a sentencing judge to consider the disparity between the Guidelines sentence and the penalty that the defendant would have been subject to in state court had the defendant been prosecuted there. This Note argues that it is reasonable for a sentencing judge to consider any such state-federal sentencing disparity. By making the Guidelines advisory, Booker returns to judges their traditional authority to craft an individualized sentence for the defendant standing before them, and it allows them to consider factors outside of the Guidelines. One such factor is any difference between the state and federal penalty, and district court judges can legitimately include that disparity in their sentencing decisions.
ACCESSION #
23314522

 

Related Articles

  • RITA, REASONED SENTENCING, AND RESISTANCE TO CHANGE. Berman, Douglas A. // Denver University Law Review;2007, Vol. 85 Issue 1, p7 

    The article looks at the challenging issues raised by the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in "United States v. Booker" regarding the Sixth Amendment and federal sentencing guidelines. The issues that were resolved and those that remain unresolved after the court's decision on "Rita v. United...

  • RITA NEEDS GALL — HOW TO MAKE THE GUIDELINES ADVISORY. Gertner, Nancy // Denver University Law Review;2007, Vol. 85 Issue 1, p63 

    The article argues that the changes in the federal sentencing guidelines as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in "Rita v. United States" needs additional course correction by the highest court to make sentencing fully consistent with the decision in "United States v. Booker." It is...

  • AN APPELLATE PERSPECTIVE OF FEDERAL SENTENCING AFTER BOOKER AND RITA. Sutton, Jeffrey S. // Denver University Law Review;2007, Vol. 85 Issue 1, p79 

    The article presents the perspective of a circuit judge of a U.S. court of appeals on federal sentencing guidelines after the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in "Rita v. United States" and "Booker v. United States." It also looks at the three categories of district-court sentences, which have...

  • From Booker to Gall: The Evolution of the Reasonableness Doctrine as Applied to White-Collar Criminals and Sentencing Variances. Kannenberg, Casey C. // Journal of Corporation Law;Fall2008, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p349 

    The article discusses the role of court cases United States v. Booker and Gall v. United States on the country's federal sentencing scheme and the doctrine of reasonableness to white-collar criminal sentences. The author explores the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which introduced a broad...

  • WHY THE PRIOR CONVICTION SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS IN ILLEGAL RE-ENTRY CASES ARE UNJUST AND UNJUSTIFIED (AND UNREASONABLE TOO). Keller, Doug // Boston College Law Review;May2010, Vol. 51 Issue 3, p719 

    This Article discusses an important federal sentencing issue that has received little scholarly attention, despite affecting thousands of lives each year: the harsh prior conviction sentencing enhancements that defendants can receive in illegal re-entry cases-and only in illegal re-entry cases....

  • THE FUTURE OF APPELLATE SENTENCING REVIEW: BOOKER IN THE STATES. Pfaff, John F. // Marquette Law Review;Winter2009, Vol. 93 Issue 2, p683 

    The article discusses the issue involved in the review of the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Booker. It states that the case does not restore appellate review, strengthen the regulatory review, and creates a confusing and unappealing case review. It also mentions that the case grants a...

  • WHAT THE SENTENCING COMMISSION OUGHT TO BE DOING: REDUCING MASS INCARCERATION. Adelman, Lynn // Michigan Journal of Race & Law;Spring2013, Vol. 18 Issue 2, p295 

    The article discusses the role of the U.S. Sentencing Commission (Commission) that is responsible for articulating the sentencing guidelines for the U.S. federal courts. It describes the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the U.S. sentencing guidelines in context of the problem of mass...

  • Still in Balance? Federal District Court Discretion and Appellate Review Six Years After Booker. Michael Fisher, D. // Duquesne Law Review;Fall2011, Vol. 49 Issue 4, p641 

    The article focuses on the governing federal sentencing practice in order to balance the challenge of newfound district court discretion in United States v. Booker. It discusses the development of sentencing jurisprudence and statistical evidences compiled by the sentencing commission to get...

  • Extralegal Punishment Factors: A Study of Forgiveness, Hardship, Good Deeds, Apology, Remorse, and Other Such Discretionary Factors in Assessing Criminal Punishment. Robinson, Paul H.; Jackowitz, Sean E.; Bartels, Daniel M. // Vanderbilt Law Review;Apr2012, Vol. 65 Issue 3, p737 

    The article discusses the impact of extralegal punishment factors such as forgiveness, hardship, and remorse on the criminal punishment decision making process in the U.S. as of April 2012. It states that several state legislatures have recognized certain extralegal factors as grounds for...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics