Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure

Being charged with a crime is a frightening and stressful process. If you find yourself in this situation, it is best to understand the process that you will go through so that you can be mentally and legally prepared.

In 2004, the Commission set to evaluate the effects of the Guidelines as part of its congressionally mandated 15-year review of federal sentencing practice. The 1991 Report was a short-term impact review that only evaluated data once the Guidelines were full implementation in 1990. The 2004 Report picks up where the 1991 Report left off by focusing on three primary areas of assessments: Guidelines impact on transparency and rationality of sentencing and severity of punishment, impact of Guidelines on inter-judge and regional disparity, and research on racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing today (Fifteen Years of Guidelines, 2004).

Sentencing guidelines are just that, guidelines to follow we a sentencing of an individual is taking place. “At the national level this effort led to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which established a set of guidelines to structure the sentencing process: The guidelines contain a Sentencing Table with 43 offense levels on the vertical axis and six categories of criminal history on the horizontal axis. Offenders in criminal history category 1 would likely have little or no criminal record, while those in category 6 would likely have extensive criminal histories” ( Carp, Manning & Stidham, 2014) The guideline is to make sure that people with no criminal background vs a convicted felon get different sentencing based on their criminal past. Also, for one to understand that if you do the crime you will do the time. These guidelines are supposed to maintain order in the sentencing within the court. This also helps the sentencing because the judge is given a guideline to follow. So no one party can say “oh the judge did not like me and threw the book at me”, no he or she just was doing their job.

In delving further into the debate between the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of mandatory sentencing, it is relevant to scrutinize the constitutionality of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. There is concern “that the Guidelines did not allow sufficient judicial discretion.” Congress in turn argued that the Guidelines were created to alleviate the disproportionate sentences created by judicial discretion.

Once an individual has been found guilty of a crime, sentencing will take place within thirty to sixty days. The sentencing hearing is set far enough in advance that a presentence investigation can be held by the probation department (Aberle, 2014). During the presentencing investigation the probation department will assign members to look at the defendant’s prior criminal history, military history, work history, summary of the charges including mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and statements from the victim or victim’s family (Aberle, 2014). All information is gathered and a report is written providing a recommendation to the judge of what sentence should be imposed. Sentencing can be handled in several different ways including jail time, prison time, probation, fines, or any combination of the aforementioned (Aberle, 2014).

The United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) is responsible for the creation of the federal guidelines that are consistent across the United States . When the guidelines were originally established in the 1960s, judges were required to follow them and not go outside of these guidelines. This did not take into consideration outside factors, such as cooperation or admitting to their crimes. It wasn’t until the Supreme Court decision of Booker v U.S. in 2005 that that changed and judges were able to go above or below these

Sentencing guidelines establishes a set of guidelines that structure the sentencing process. The guidelines are at the federal level as well as the state level. The majority of the states have their own sentencing guidelines. These requirements brought about the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 which judges must

I. FOLLOWING RULE 56 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DISTRICT BECAUSE THERE IS NO DISPUTE OF MATERIAL FACT, FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS MAY BE DECIDED AS A MATTER OF LAW, AND A RATIONAL TRIER OF FACT WOULD FIND FOR THE DISTRICT.

Federal statutory mandatory minimum penalties have existed since the early days of the nation,1 and they have continually evolved in the centuries since. As policy views have shifted over time, Congress2 and many others3 have continued to examine the role and scope of these mandatory minimum penalties in the federal criminal system.4 For more than thirty years, the United States Sentencing Commission (“the Commission”)5 has played a central role in this process, working with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and other interested parties to ensure that sentencing policy promotes the goals of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (“SRA”).6 Consistent with its statutory role,7 the Commission has continued to inform the

As a probation officer, the officer balanced approach between the use of evidence-base practice and maintaining a responsive officer-offender working relationship is necessary. Several factors are at play when considering the complexity of the job of an officer making the effectiveness of probation supervision difficult to assess. In order for an officer to enforce the law and help offenders, the officer must attain the following: have the skills of an officer, the availability of service such as employment counseling or drug treatment, and the understanding needs and motives of the probationer. Firstly, in order for an officer to enforce the law and help offenders the officer must have the skills of an officer.

Determinate sentences often contain mandatory minimums and increased sentences for particular transgressions. Sentencing guidelines provide judges flexibility, thus empowering the court to consider aggravating or mitigating circumstances when determining a sentence.

"Restrictive sentencing guidelines and statutory mandatory minimum sentences have taken away the discretion of judges to tailor sentences to fit the individual circumstances of particular crimes and offenders." (Mauro, 2007)

Mandatory Sentencing, defined by definitions.uslegal.com, are those sentences which a judicial officer is required to impose regardless of the circumstances of the offense. This means, the judicial officer has no discretion to impose a higher or lower sentence depending upon the nature of crime. In my way of thinking, there is something wrong with the way people are being convicted, and how easily people get off compared to others - and it needs to be changed.

The presentence investigation report (PSI) is a critical source of information considered by judges before imposing a sentence (Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice, n.d.). John Augustus introduced the PSI in 1840 (Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice, n.d.). John Augustus is known as the father of modern probation (Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice, n.d.). The main purpose of the presentence investigation report is to help judges impose the appropriate sentence (Abadinsky, 2009).

1. Does the information included in the warrant application amount to Probable Cause? Why or why not?