Judicial discretion in federal sentencing

This article examines policy implications of Jeffery T. Ulmer, Michael T. Light and John H. Kramer's article "Racial disparity in the wake of the Booker/Fanfan decision: An alternative analysis to the USSC's 2010 report" (same journal issue). The author concurs with the policy re...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Criminology & public policy 2011-11, Vol.10 (4), p.1151-1155
Main Author: Albonetti, Celesta A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Criminal justice
Decisions
Discretion
Federal government
Sentences (law)
Sentencing
Citations: 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-c2132-7b90a7d6c5ab4af4b58c48c37e3d81e5976dd0a04a9fbe08103674c1c606b333
cites
container_end_page 1155
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1151
container_title Criminology & public policy
container_volume 10
creator Albonetti, Celesta A.
description This article examines policy implications of Jeffery T. Ulmer, Michael T. Light and John H. Kramer's article "Racial disparity in the wake of the Booker/Fanfan decision: An alternative analysis to the USSC's 2010 report" (same journal issue). The author concurs with the policy recommendations of Ulmer et al., stating there is no need to institute statutory remedies for sentences that do not greatly differ from those imposed under pre-Booker mandatory guidelines structure. Adapted from the source document.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00772.x
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_wiley</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1728649804</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1010631203</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2132-7b90a7d6c5ab4af4b58c48c37e3d81e5976dd0a04a9fbe08103674c1c606b333</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE9PwkAQxTdGExH9Dj3qoXWm-7cHD4QoalBJJHLcbLdbs1gKdkuEb28rxqtzmcnMey-THyERQoJdXS8TlIzHGVKapICYAEiZJrsjMvg7HHczpyoWTNJTchbCEgA5Rz4gV4_bwltvqqjwwTau9es68nVUusI13Ta4unW19fX7OTkpTRXcxW8fkvnd7Xx8H09fJg_j0TS2KdI0lnkGRhbCcpMzU7KcK8uUpdLRQqHjmRRFAQaYycrcgUKgQjKLVoDIKaVDcnmI3TTrz60LrV51j7mqMrVbb4NGmSrBMgXsfykgCIop9Kk3B-mXr9xebxq_Ms2-U-geol7qnpXuWekeov6BqHd6PJrNuqnzxwe_D63b_flN86GFpJLrxfNEP6Hgizcl9Cv9BiqCdN8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1010631203</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Judicial discretion in federal sentencing</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Albonetti, Celesta A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Albonetti, Celesta A.</creatorcontrib><description>This article examines policy implications of Jeffery T. Ulmer, Michael T. Light and John H. Kramer's article "Racial disparity in the wake of the Booker/Fanfan decision: An alternative analysis to the USSC's 2010 report" (same journal issue). The author concurs with the policy recommendations of Ulmer et al., stating there is no need to institute statutory remedies for sentences that do not greatly differ from those imposed under pre-Booker mandatory guidelines structure. Adapted from the source document.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1538-6473</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1745-9133</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00772.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing Inc</publisher><subject>Criminal justice ; Decisions ; Discretion ; Federal government ; Sentences (law) ; Sentencing</subject><ispartof>Criminology &amp; public policy, 2011-11, Vol.10 (4), p.1151-1155</ispartof><rights>2011 American Society of Criminology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2132-7b90a7d6c5ab4af4b58c48c37e3d81e5976dd0a04a9fbe08103674c1c606b333</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27844,27903,27904,33754</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Albonetti, Celesta A.</creatorcontrib><title>Judicial discretion in federal sentencing</title><title>Criminology &amp; public policy</title><description>This article examines policy implications of Jeffery T. Ulmer, Michael T. Light and John H. Kramer's article "Racial disparity in the wake of the Booker/Fanfan decision: An alternative analysis to the USSC's 2010 report" (same journal issue). The author concurs with the policy recommendations of Ulmer et al., stating there is no need to institute statutory remedies for sentences that do not greatly differ from those imposed under pre-Booker mandatory guidelines structure. Adapted from the source document.</description><subject>Criminal justice</subject><subject>Decisions</subject><subject>Discretion</subject><subject>Federal government</subject><subject>Sentences (law)</subject><subject>Sentencing</subject><issn>1538-6473</issn><issn>1745-9133</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE9PwkAQxTdGExH9Dj3qoXWm-7cHD4QoalBJJHLcbLdbs1gKdkuEb28rxqtzmcnMey-THyERQoJdXS8TlIzHGVKapICYAEiZJrsjMvg7HHczpyoWTNJTchbCEgA5Rz4gV4_bwltvqqjwwTau9es68nVUusI13Ta4unW19fX7OTkpTRXcxW8fkvnd7Xx8H09fJg_j0TS2KdI0lnkGRhbCcpMzU7KcK8uUpdLRQqHjmRRFAQaYycrcgUKgQjKLVoDIKaVDcnmI3TTrz60LrV51j7mqMrVbb4NGmSrBMgXsfykgCIop9Kk3B-mXr9xebxq_Ms2-U-geol7qnpXuWekeov6BqHd6PJrNuqnzxwe_D63b_flN86GFpJLrxfNEP6Hgizcl9Cv9BiqCdN8</recordid><startdate>201111</startdate><enddate>201111</enddate><creator>Albonetti, Celesta A.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201111</creationdate><title>Judicial discretion in federal sentencing</title><author>Albonetti, Celesta A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2132-7b90a7d6c5ab4af4b58c48c37e3d81e5976dd0a04a9fbe08103674c1c606b333</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Criminal justice</topic><topic>Decisions</topic><topic>Discretion</topic><topic>Federal government</topic><topic>Sentences (law)</topic><topic>Sentencing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Albonetti, Celesta A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Criminology &amp; public policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Albonetti, Celesta A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Judicial discretion in federal sentencing</atitle><jtitle>Criminology &amp; public policy</jtitle><date>2011-11</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1151</spage><epage>1155</epage><pages>1151-1155</pages><issn>1538-6473</issn><eissn>1745-9133</eissn><abstract>This article examines policy implications of Jeffery T. Ulmer, Michael T. Light and John H. Kramer's article "Racial disparity in the wake of the Booker/Fanfan decision: An alternative analysis to the USSC's 2010 report" (same journal issue). The author concurs with the policy recommendations of Ulmer et al., stating there is no need to institute statutory remedies for sentences that do not greatly differ from those imposed under pre-Booker mandatory guidelines structure. Adapted from the source document.</abstract><cop>Malden, USA</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00772.x</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1538-6473
ispartof Criminology & public policy, 2011-11, Vol.10 (4), p.1151-1155
issn 1538-6473
1745-9133
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1728649804
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection; PAIS Index; Sociological Abstracts
subjects Criminal justice
Decisions
Discretion
Federal government
Sentences (law)
Sentencing
title Judicial discretion in federal sentencing
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T07%3A28%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_wiley&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Judicial%20discretion%20in%20federal%20sentencing&rft.jtitle=Criminology%20&%20public%20policy&rft.au=Albonetti,%20Celesta%20A.&rft.date=2011-11&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1151&rft.epage=1155&rft.pages=1151-1155&rft.issn=1538-6473&rft.eissn=1745-9133&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00772.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_wiley%3E1010631203%3C/proquest_wiley%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2132-7b90a7d6c5ab4af4b58c48c37e3d81e5976dd0a04a9fbe08103674c1c606b333%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1010631203&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true