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!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1395-67512d00e84002bfad962684ebaa2114bf10c8abd927b6fa194130ea6e7d561e3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1395-67512d00e84002bfad962684ebaa2114bf10c8abd927b6fa194130ea6e7d561e3
container_end_page 163
container_issue 3
container_start_page 160
container_title Federal sentencing reporter
container_volume 18
creator Adelman, Lynn
Deitrich, Jon
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1525/fsr.2006.18.3.160
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_219941425</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>10.1525/fsr.2006.18.3.160</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>10.1525/fsr.2006.18.3.160</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1395-67512d00e84002bfad962684ebaa2114bf10c8abd927b6fa194130ea6e7d561e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kE1LxDAQQIMouK7-AA9C2Iun1pl8NfWmq6vCoiB6DmmbQqtuatIF99-bpeJp5vDeDDxCzhFylExetTHkDEDlqHOeo4IDMkPJeaa54odpB8mzUqvimJzE2AOAEILNyOVdFwcbunF3TZ_9SC19dTb6DR09Xay6nwW99f7DhVNy1NrP6M7-5py8r-7flo_Z-uXhaXmzzmrkpcxUIZE1AE4LAFa1tikVU1q4ylqGKKoWoda2akpWVKq1WArk4KxyRSMVOj4ni-nuEPz31sXR9H4bNumlYVgmWjCZIJygOvgYg2vNELovG3YGwexzmJTD7HMY1IablCM5F5PTx9GHf4GBEggM-S9wfFnM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>219941425</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Disparity: Not a Reason to "Fix" Booker</title><source>Criminology Collection</source><source>Nexis UK</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><creator>Adelman, Lynn ; Deitrich, Jon</creator><creatorcontrib>Adelman, Lynn ; Deitrich, Jon</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1053-9867</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1533-8363</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1525/fsr.2006.18.3.160</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: University of California Press</publisher><subject>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</subject><ispartof>Federal sentencing reporter, 2006-02, Vol.18 (3), p.160-163</ispartof><rights>2006 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.</rights><rights>Copyright (c) 2006 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1395-67512d00e84002bfad962684ebaa2114bf10c8abd927b6fa194130ea6e7d561e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1395-67512d00e84002bfad962684ebaa2114bf10c8abd927b6fa194130ea6e7d561e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/219941425?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21376,21394,27924,27925,33611,33769,43733,43814</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Adelman, Lynn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deitrich, Jon</creatorcontrib><title>Disparity: Not a Reason to "Fix" Booker</title><title>Federal sentencing reporter</title><description>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.</description><subject>Criminal sentences</subject><subject>Criminal sentencing</subject><subject>Criminals</subject><subject>Defendants</subject><subject>Federal courts</subject><subject>Judges</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Length of sentence</subject><subject>Mandatory minimum sentences</subject><subject>Prisons</subject><subject>Sentence review</subject><subject>Sentenced offenders</subject><subject>Sentencing guidelines</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><issn>1053-9867</issn><issn>1533-8363</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>BGRYB</sourceid><sourceid>M0O</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kE1LxDAQQIMouK7-AA9C2Iun1pl8NfWmq6vCoiB6DmmbQqtuatIF99-bpeJp5vDeDDxCzhFylExetTHkDEDlqHOeo4IDMkPJeaa54odpB8mzUqvimJzE2AOAEILNyOVdFwcbunF3TZ_9SC19dTb6DR09Xay6nwW99f7DhVNy1NrP6M7-5py8r-7flo_Z-uXhaXmzzmrkpcxUIZE1AE4LAFa1tikVU1q4ylqGKKoWoda2akpWVKq1WArk4KxyRSMVOj4ni-nuEPz31sXR9H4bNumlYVgmWjCZIJygOvgYg2vNELovG3YGwexzmJTD7HMY1IablCM5F5PTx9GHf4GBEggM-S9wfFnM</recordid><startdate>200602</startdate><enddate>200602</enddate><creator>Adelman, Lynn</creator><creator>Deitrich, Jon</creator><general>University of California Press</general><general>University of California Press Books Division</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200602</creationdate><title>Disparity: Not a Reason to "Fix" Booker</title><author>Adelman, Lynn ; Deitrich, Jon</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1395-67512d00e84002bfad962684ebaa2114bf10c8abd927b6fa194130ea6e7d561e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Criminal sentences</topic><topic>Criminal sentencing</topic><topic>Criminals</topic><topic>Defendants</topic><topic>Federal courts</topic><topic>Judges</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Length of sentence</topic><topic>Mandatory minimum sentences</topic><topic>Prisons</topic><topic>Sentence review</topic><topic>Sentenced offenders</topic><topic>Sentencing guidelines</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Adelman, Lynn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deitrich, Jon</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Federal sentencing reporter</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Adelman, Lynn</au><au>Deitrich, Jon</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Disparity: Not a Reason to "Fix" Booker</atitle><jtitle>Federal sentencing reporter</jtitle><date>2006-02</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>160</spage><epage>163</epage><pages>160-163</pages><issn>1053-9867</issn><eissn>1533-8363</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>University of California Press</pub><doi>10.1525/fsr.2006.18.3.160</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1053-9867
ispartof Federal sentencing reporter, 2006-02, Vol.18 (3), p.160-163
issn 1053-9867
1533-8363
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_219941425
source Criminology Collection; Nexis UK; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; Social Science Premium Collection
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
title Disparity: Not a Reason to "Fix" Booker
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T17%3A44%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Disparity:%20Not%20a%20Reason%20to%20%22Fix%22%20Booker&rft.jtitle=Federal%20sentencing%20reporter&rft.au=Adelman,%20Lynn&rft.date=2006-02&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=160&rft.epage=163&rft.pages=160-163&rft.issn=1053-9867&rft.eissn=1533-8363&rft_id=info:doi/10.1525/fsr.2006.18.3.160&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E10.1525/fsr.2006.18.3.160%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1395-67512d00e84002bfad962684ebaa2114bf10c8abd927b6fa194130ea6e7d561e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=219941425&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=10.1525/fsr.2006.18.3.160&rfr_iscdi=true