Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Background, Legal Analysis, and Policy Options (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (21 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Revised March 16, 2009 |
| Report Number |
RL32766 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Lisa M. Seghetti, Domestic Social Policy Division; Alison M. Smith, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Revised Dec. 13, 2007 (22 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised June 30, 2007 (21 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised April 4, 2005 (18 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Feb. 9, 2005 (18 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
Historically, the way in which convicted offenders are sentenced falls under one of two penal policiesâindeterminate and determinate sentences. Indeterminate sentencing practices were predominant for several decades, leading up to the major reform efforts undertaken by many states and the federal government in the mid- to-late 1970s and early 1980s. The perceived failure of the indeterminate system to "cure" the criminal, coupled with renewed concern about the rising crime rate throughout the nation in the mid-1970s, resulted in wide experimentation with sentencing systems by many states and the creation of sentencing guidelines at the federal level. In 1984, Congress passed a sentencing reform measure, which abolished indeterminate sentencing at the federal level and created a determinate sentencing structure through the federal sentencing guidelines. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 reformed the federal sentencing system by (1) dropping rehabilitation as one of the goals of punishment; (2) creating the U.S. Sentencing Commission and charging it with establishing sentencing guidelines; (3) making all federal sentences determinate; and (4) authorizing appellate review of sentences.
In United States v. Booker (Booker), an unusual two-part opinion transformed federal criminal sentencing by restoring to judges much of the discretion that Congress took away when it put mandatory sentencing guidelines in place. In the first opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that the mandatory sentencing guidelines violated defendants' Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury by giving judges the power to make factual findings that increased sentences beyond the maximum that the jury's finding alone would support. In the second part, a different majority concluded that the constitutional deficiency could be remedied if the guidelines were treated as discretionary or advisory rather than mandatory. As a result of the decisions, the Court struck down a provision in law that made the federal sentencing guidelines mandatory as well as a provision that permitted appellate review of departures from the guidelines. In essence, the high Court's ruling gives federal judges discretion in sentencing offenders by not requiring them to adhere to the guidelines; rather, the guidelines can be used by judges on an advisory basis.
In light of the Court ruling in Booker and subsequent cases, the issue for Congress is whether to amend current law to require federal judges to follow guided sentences, or permit federal judges to use their discretion in sentencing under certain circumstances. Congressional options include (1) maintain the sentencing guidelines by specifying mandatory minimum sentences and increasing the top of each guideline range to a statutory maximum for specified offenses (hence, codify specified sentencing ranges that are in the guidelines); (2) require jury trials for any enhancement factor that would increase the sentence for which the defendant did not waive his or her rights; or (3) take no action, thus permitting judicial discretion in sentencing in cases where Congress has not specified mandatory sentences.
