Improving Federal Sentencing
Shon R. Hopwood
Abstract
Shon R. Hopwood
Abstract
Even after the Supreme Court declared the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional and advisory only, federal judges continue to impose advisory Guidelines sentences in a large number of sentencing proceedings. Judges continue to employ the Guidelines, even though the Guidelines are overly punitive and even though the U.S. Sentencing Commission does not take into consideration the thousands of collateral consequences that those convicted of federal felonies face after serving a period of incarceration. Why? This essay explains why federal sentencing judges should discontinue such heavy reliance on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines ranges.
OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Even after the Supreme Court declared the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional and advisory only, federal judges continue to impose advisory Guidelines sentences in a large number of sentencing proceedings. Judges continue to employ the Guidelines, even though the Guidelines are overly punitive and even though the U.S. Sentencing Commission does not take into consideration the thousands of collateral consequences that those convicted of federal felonies face after serving a period of incarceration. Why? This essay explains why federal sentencing judges should discontinue such heavy reliance on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines ranges.
Key concepts: Sentencing guidelines, Punitive damages, Supreme court, Political science, Commission, Law, Collateral, Advisory committee