Sentencing Proportionality in the States

Gregory S. Schneider

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

December 12, 2011

Arizona Law Review, Vol. 54, 2012, page 241

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.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 35

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

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: December 15, 2011 ; Last revised: March 30, 2012

Suggested Citation

Schneider, Gregory S., Sentencing Proportionality in the States (December 12, 2011). Arizona Law Review, Vol. 54, 2012, page 241. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1971569

Contact Information

Gregory S. Schneider (Contact Author)
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP ( email )
Cleveland, OH
United States
HOME PAGE: http://www.squiresanders.com/gregory-schneider/
University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law ( email )
P.O. Box 210176
Tucson, AZ 85721-0176
United States
520-261-1381 (Phone)

Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 961
Downloads: 107
Download Rank: 202,445