Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1640611
 
 

Footnotes (92)



 


 



Booker Reconsidered


Jonathan S. Masur


University of Chicago - Law School

July 15, 2010

University of Chicago Law Review, Forthcoming
U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 311

Abstract:     
In his dissent in Booker, Judge Frank Easterbrook predicted dire consequences if the Supreme Court were to invalidate the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Those consequences have not arisen, largely because the Court has ducked the implications of Judge Easterbrook’s pragmatic logic (and its own). But in an effort to salvage a set of workable sentencing rules, the Supreme Court has settled upon a division of institutional responsibilities that serves none of the parties involved in the criminal justice system well and fails to address the problem that catalyzed its intervention in the first instance. The Sentencing Commission may not have functioned perfectly, but the Supreme Court’s attempt at ad hoc institutional design seems unlikely to produce any better results.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 21

Keywords: Easterbrook, Booker, Supreme Court, sentencing, sentencing commission, sentencing guidelines, criminal law, criminal procedure

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: July 16, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Masur, Jonathan S., Booker Reconsidered (July 15, 2010). University of Chicago Law Review, Forthcoming; U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 311. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1640611

Contact Information

Jonathan S. Masur (Contact Author)
University of Chicago - Law School ( email )
1111 E. 60th St.
Chicago, IL 60637
United States
773.702.5188 (Phone)
HOME PAGE: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/masur/
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 717
Downloads: 114
Download Rank: 142,665
Footnotes:  92

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.297 seconds