Disparity: Not a Reason to "Fix" Booker

A year has passed since the Supreme Court decided Booker and, according to the Sentencing Commission's data, little has changed. Adelman and Dietrich argue that, for three reasons, Congress should permit the present system to continue. First, there is no evidence that Booker has created unwarra...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Federal sentencing reporter 2006-02, Vol.18 (3), p.160-163
Main Authors: Adelman, Lynn, Deitrich, Jon
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Criminal sentences
Criminal sentencing
Criminals
Defendants
Federal courts
Judges
Legislation
Length of sentence
Mandatory minimum sentences
Prisons
Sentence review
Sentenced offenders
Sentencing guidelines
Supreme Court decisions
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:A year has passed since the Supreme Court decided Booker and, according to the Sentencing Commission's data, little has changed. Adelman and Dietrich argue that, for three reasons, Congress should permit the present system to continue. First, there is no evidence that Booker has created unwarranted disparity. Second, mandatory guidelines do not eliminate disparity but merely move the discretion that is its source from one place in the criminal justice system to another. Finally, mandatory sentencing laws result in unfairness in many cases, and this unfairness outweighs the benefit of any reduction in disparity that they might produce.
ISSN:1053-9867
1533-8363
DOI:10.1525/fsr.2006.18.3.160