|
||||
|
||||
Policing Politics at Sentencing
Stephanos Bibas University of Pennsylvania Law School Max M. Schanzenbach Northwestern University - School of Law Emerson H. Tiller Northwestern University - School of Law Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 103, pp. 1371, 2009 U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 08-37 Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 08-29 Abstract: In the recent Booker, Rita, and Gall cases, the Supreme Court continued to loosen federal sentencing law without exploring the implications of broader trial-court sentencing discretion. Drawing on our previous work in positive political theory, this essay argues that binding sentencing guidelines are necessary to constrain trial-court discretion and permit meaningful appellate review. The Court has taken too rosy a view of trial-court sentencing discretion, undervaluing appellate review as a check on policy and ideological variations. Moreover, its case law discourages the transparency needed for appellate review and public scrutiny. Finally, this essay considers what guideline sentencing ought to look like if we could build it from scratch.
Keywords: criminal law and procedure, sentencing, guidelines, discretion Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: March 07, 2008 ; Last revised: November 12, 2009Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
|||||||||||||
© 2010 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was served by apollo7b in 0.625 seconds.