Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=945441
 
 

Footnotes (45)



 


 



The Real (Sentencing) World: State Sentencing in the Post-Blakely Era


Douglas A. Berman


Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law

Steven L. Chanenson


Villanova University School of Law


Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 4, p. 27, 2006
Villanova Law/Public Policy Research Paper No. 2006-26

Abstract:     
Soon after the Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington declared certain judicial fact-finding within a state sentencing guideline system unconstitutional, Justice O'Connor described the Court's decision as a "Number 10 earthquake." But two years after the Blakely ruling, the case's broader impact and meaning for state criminal justice systems around the country has been largely overshadowed by developments in the federal sentencing system. Nevertheless, this is an exciting time for state sentencing. By granting review in yet another state sentencing case, California v. Cunningham, this past spring, the Supreme Court brings state issues to the national stage once more.

State courts handle many more criminal cases than the federal courts. State sentencing procedures touch the lives of many more defendants, victims and witnesses than the federal sentencing system. Yet, these realities often get lost in all the attention paid to the federal sentencing system in the era of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, perhaps because the federal system is in everyone's backyard whether that backyard is in Manhattan or Montana. Especially in the academic world, there is seemingly endless interest in federal sentencing law and practices, but precious little discussion of state sentencing reforms generally or of developments in particular states.

The direct and indirect impact of Apprendi and especially Blakely in the states is a rich and dynamic story, with many facets and lessons that should not be overlooked. The doctrinal uncertainty and confusion produced by Blakely and Booker makes it dangerously easy for jurisdictions to be concerned primarily with technical problems in particular sentencing laws rather than with broader reform issues. But the Supreme Court's coming work in Cunningham, like Blakely before it, should motivate state legislatures, courts, and sentencing commissions to reexamine and improve their sentencing systems.

In this Commentary - which serves as the introduction to a broader symposium on state sentencing after Blakely - we argue in favor of robust state sentencing commissions as part of that reexamination and improvement. Creating and empowering a sentencing commission closes few, if any, substantive options for state sentencing systems. The resulting sentences urged by a sentencing commission can be comparatively high and tightly controlled by a central authority. In contrast, sentences can also be set relatively low and sentencing decisions can be left comparatively unencumbered by binding guidance. A pro-commission view is a process-oriented recommendation with few, if any, inherent substantive sentencing consequences. It does, however, encourage much-needed rationality and transparency in sentencing.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 10

Keywords: sentencing, criminal sentencing, Blakley, Booker, Cunningham, state sentencing, sentencing commissions, state sentencing commissions

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: November 17, 2006  

Suggested Citation

Berman, Douglas A. and Chanenson, Steven L., The Real (Sentencing) World: State Sentencing in the Post-Blakely Era. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 4, p. 27, 2006; Villanova Law/Public Policy Research Paper No. 2006-26. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=945441

Contact Information

Douglas A. Berman (Contact Author)
Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law ( email )
55 West 12th Street
Columbus, OH 43210
United States
614-688-8690 (Phone)
Steven L. Chanenson
Villanova University School of Law ( email )
299 N. Spring Mill Road
Villanova, PA 19085
United States
610-519-7459 (Phone)
610-519-6472 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 865
Downloads: 73
Download Rank: 192,496
Footnotes:  45

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.312 seconds