Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

Sentencing Proportionality in the States

35 Pages Posted: 15 Dec 2011 Last revised: 30 Mar 2012

Gregory S. Schneider

Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP; University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law

Date Written: December 12, 2011


It seems axiomatic in a “society of laws and not of men” that a sentence ought to be generally proportioned in degree to the underlying criminal offense. Extreme sentences, when they appear disproportionate to the underlying offense, undermine public confidence in the justice system, are ineffectual as deterrents to an angry public who perceive them as unjust, and are not useful in reforming the criminal who can see no fairness in such an extreme sentence. This Note explores the principles and analytical tools several states’ judiciaries have expounded to analyze the proportionality of sentences, and concludes that these states have formulated a coherent and workable system of review that other jurisdictions can take advantage of by either legislative or judicial action.

Keywords: proportionality, sentencing, sentencing proportionality, proportional sentences, Eighth Amendment, state sentencing, punishment, cruel and unusual punishment

Suggested Citation

Schneider, Gregory S., Sentencing Proportionality in the States (December 12, 2011). Arizona Law Review, Vol. 54, 2012, page 241. Available at SSRN:

Gregory Schneider (Contact Author)

Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP ( email )

Cleveland, OH
United States


University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law ( email )

P.O. Box 210176
Tucson, AZ 85721-0176
United States
520-261-1381 (Phone)

Paper statistics

Abstract Views