Rita v. United States Leaves More Open than it Answers
University of Pennsylvania Law School
Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 20, No. 28, October 2007
U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 09-04
This essay surveys the sentencing issues left open by Rita v. United States and considers how the presumption of reasonableness is likely to operate in practice and how rebuttable it is, the roles of safe harbors and individual judges' policy disagreements, and the importance of Justices Stevens and Ginsburg as the swing Justices in this area. This line of cases has drifted far from its roots in a Sixth Amendment concern for juries. Though the resulting sentencing policies may be substantively desirable, the Court cannot articulate how they are rooted in the Sixth Amendment's concern for juries.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 6
Keywords: Criminal sentences, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, maximum sentences, juries, Sentencing Reform Act, Apprendi, Blakely, Booker, Sixth Amendment
JEL Classification: K14, K42Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: February 25, 2009
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.344 seconds