TITLE

WHY THE PRIOR CONVICTION SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS IN ILLEGAL RE-ENTRY CASES ARE UNJUST AND UNJUSTIFIED (AND UNREASONABLE TOO)

AUTHOR(S)
Keller, Doug
PUB. DATE
May 2010
SOURCE
Boston College Law Review;May2010, Vol. 51 Issue 3, p719
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
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 Sentencing Commission created the enhancement through a perfunctory process that radically altered illegal re-entry sentencing, shifting the focus at sentencing from the illegal re-entry offense to the status of the defendant's worst prior conviction. The result is a scheme where the length of the sentence many illegal re-entry defendants receive hinges on what they previously did-sometimes many years ago-rather than on the conduct for which they are ostensibly being prosecuted. Despite the unusual nature of the enhancement, the Commission has never provided a justification for it, nor is one apparent. Moreover; the enhancement undercuts Congress's goal of reducing unwarranted sentencing disparity and recommends sentences that are simply too harsh for illegal re-entry offenses. Although courts were previously powerless to do anything about the Commission's indiscriminate decision making, that is no longer the case. Since the Supreme Court held in 2005 in United States v. Booker that the Guidelines are not mandatory, courts may now evaluate the soundness of the Guidelines themselves before imposing a sentence. Even a cursory examination of the prior conviction enhancements shows that they are unsound and should not be followed.
ACCESSION #
52465628

 

Related Articles

  • 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...

  • 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...

  • ADVISORY SENTENCING AND THE FEDERALIZATION OF CRIME: SHOULD FEDERAL SENTENCING JUDGES CONSIDER THE DISPARITY BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL SENTENCES UNDER BOOKER? DeMaso, Christine // Columbia Law Review;Dec2006, Vol. 106 Issue 8, p2095 

    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...

  • 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...

  • Breyer Review. Rosen, Jeffrey // New Republic;1/31/2005, Vol. 232 Issue 3, p10 

    Looks at a U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, which challenged federal sentencing guidelines. Report that the Supreme Court held the federal sentencing guidelines unconstitutional; Decision of the Court to uphold the guidelines as advisory but not mandatory guidelines;...

  • The Stability of Case Processing and Sentencing Post-Booker. Ulmer, Jeffery T.; Light, Michael T. // Journal of Gender, Race & Justice;Fall2010, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p143 

    The article examines the difference perceived by federal judges and defense attorneys in case processing and sentencing after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker. It presents a survey funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, focusing on views of case processing,...

  • 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...

  • THE CONTINUED VITALITY OF STRUCTURED SENTENCING FOLLOWING BLAKELY: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES. Pfaff, John F. // UCLA Law Review;Dec2006, Vol. 54 Issue 2, p235 

    The article focuses on the invalidation of the binding nature of sentencing guidelines in the U.S. Supreme Court cases Blakely v. Washington and United States v. Brooker. It explores the extent to which the sentencing behavior of state trial judges have been influenced by voluntary, nonbinding...

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