Herding Bullfrogs Towards a More Balanced Wheelbarrow: An Illustrative Recommendation for Federal Sentencing Post-Booker

31 Pages Posted: 29 Jul 2007

See all articles by Brian Gallini

Brian Gallini

Willamette University - College of Law

Emily Q. Shults

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Abstract

The Article first provides an overview of the history and prevailing motivations behind the promulgation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Then, using the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as an illustrative example, the Article contends that, notwithstanding the supposed "far-reaching" implications of both Blakely and Booker, the judiciary's continued reliance on the "advisory" Guidelines has practically changed federal sentencing procedures very little in form or function. For a contrasting response to Booker, the Article thereafter examines the State of Maine's sentencing scheme and its response to the Supreme Court's Booker/Blakely decisions. By arguing that Maine's sentencing procedure reflects a commonsense approach to sentencing by affording substantial discretion to sentencing courts within the confines of a determinate sentencing system, the Article concludes by advocating a revision to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to reflect a mixed determinate/indeterminate sentencing system.

Keywords: Booker, sentencing, guidelines, Blakely, Sixth Circuit, Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Suggested Citation

Gallini, Brian and Shults, Emily Q., Herding Bullfrogs Towards a More Balanced Wheelbarrow: An Illustrative Recommendation for Federal Sentencing Post-Booker. Journal of Legislation, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2006, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1003426

Brian Gallini (Contact Author)

Willamette University - College of Law ( email )

245 Winter St. SE
Salem, OR 97301
United States

Emily Q. Shults

affiliation not provided to SSRN ( email )

No Address Available

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
68
Abstract Views
1,654
rank
368,256
PlumX Metrics