Impact of Sentencing Guidelines

In 2010, President Barack Obama signed a Fair Sentencing Act with the objective to reduce disparity when it came to sentencing for crimes including powder and crack cocaine. Several have the belief that the Fair Sentencing Act will confront the issue of racial disparities in sentencing for crimes involving drugs (Carlsen, 2010). Minorities are more likely to be in possession of and convicted for crack cocaine drug crimes. Whereas Caucasians are more likely to be in possession of and convicted for powder cocaine drug crimes. Prior to the Fair Sentencing Act, one in possession of five grams of crack cocaine received equal punishment with one in possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine (Carlsen, 2010). This contrasting disparity can impact the way individuals view the system of justice allowing them to question whether the U.S. justice system is biased. Through the U.S. justice system, bias can be presented in various forms. During the pretrial detention stage, blacks were 10 percent more likely and Latinos three percent more likely to be detained than white defendants. During the plea-bargaining stage if a sentence is awarded, minorities are more likely to be offered deals that include prison time (74 percent) and very rarely are they offered deals of community service, fine or time served. Whereas Caucasians have a lower rate of jail/prison time (50

Secondly, they should be addressed the needs of offenders and the deficits in their lives that contributed to their offending. And thirdly, sentences should not be severe, intrusive, or damaging to an offender’s later decarceration to live a righteous life than is minimally necessary to achieve valid purposes of the sentence he or she receives (Tonry 508). An addition to these are proportionality, which means that sentences should correspond in severity to the seriousness of the crimes which they are inflicted. Also, regularity, which signifies that sentences should be guided by official standards to make the process clear, procedures fair, and allow judges to be more accountable (Tonry 508). Moreover, the American Criminal Code must be taken into consideration. Two features must be altered if the sentencing is to become fair, effective, and just. Firstly, the harsh sentencing laws must be revoked, and secondly the limits, that matches the offense seriousness, must be put on the lawful sentences (Tonry 514). Moreover, Tonry mentioned about future changes that, “If adopted, they would greatly reduce the number of people in prison in future years, but their adoption would not significantly reduce the scale of American imprisonment in 2015 or in 2020. Doing that will require enactment of new laws authorizing reconsideration of sentences now being served (Tonry 523).

Statistical elaboration has shown that decreasing the prison population does not affect the well being of the community. Diminishing overcrowding within our jails should be of great importance for state administrations. Our President Barack Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act into effect in 2010. The method must be two-fold: first, understand how the Fair Sentencing Act works, and second, put a greater emphasis on the recommendations given in reducing the disparity in sentencing.

This essay explains sentencing in the United States Criminal Justice system. The objectives of punishment in the United States corrections is to help deter crime and to ensure reoffenders don’t reoffend. Sentencing impacts the corrections system and society in a positive manor by eliminating offenders out of the community. Sentencing may include one of the following: probation, fines, prison, community service, probation and so forth depending on the state you reside and the type of offense you commit. Each crime committed doesn’t have a set sentence, therefore they are determined on a case to case basis. The main goal of the criminal justice system is to defend the community and serve justice. Sentencing plays a vital role in the Criminal Justice system.

“Inter-judge sentencing disparity, in the view of sentencing reformers, offends important rule of law principles, erodes respect for the courts, and undermines the deterrent effect of criminal law.” (Scott, 4) The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, were created by the United States Sentencing Commission, were put in place to minimize unwarranted disparity among the sentences handed out by judges. These same guidelines that helped to decrease disparity among the sentences that same offenders received or did not receive, were made advisory in a serious of decisions from 2005 to 2007. (Scott, 1) Giving too much power to judges, through the advisory of the federal sentencing guidelines, has since created a surge in inter-judge disparities. Unwarranted

The Sentencing Reform Act is associated with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, were the U.S. federal statute increased the consistency in the United States federal sentencing. The Sentencing Reform Act created the United States Sentencing Commission. This act allowed the independent commission into the judicial branch of the United States Sentencing Commission. It consists of seven voting members and one nonvoting member. For the sake of the United States Sentencing Commission, there are regulations that establish sentencing policies and practices for the Federal criminal justice system, which ensures a meeting of the purposes of sentencing. Judges are also bestowed the power to determine the legitimacy of convictions. The aspiration of the Sentence Reform Act was to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct Also to allow the Judicial system to process....

In today’s society crimes in the United State are growing each day, and the major aspect of the U.S criminal justice system is the punishment imposed on those who committed crimes in our communities. One method of sentencing criminals was the establishment of the mandatory minimum sentencing. During the early days of the republic, specific sentences were carried out for certain crime and early mandatory sentences the forms of punishment used at the time stretched from ducking stools/cucking stools for disorderly women and dishonest tradesmen in England, Soctland to hanging for convicted murderers. However, in recent years, evidence gathered have shown that the federal mandatory minimum sentencing were not in effect for reaching the goals of the criminal justice system. Chief Justice William Rehnquist has previously stated that “these statutes are “perhaps a good example of the law of unintended consequences. This essay will discuss the history, goals, benefits, and negatives of the American Judicial Systems Mandatory Sentencing.

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 established a uniform set of sentencing guidelines that led to a determinate sentencing structure, where sentences for specific offenses are predetermined. Minimum mandatory sentences for certain offenses have also been put in place. In determining what an offender's sentence should be, investigators prepare a presentence investigation report. Sentencing options range from probation, intermediate sanctions (like halfway houses), incarceration in jail (for most misdemeanors), or prisons (for most

After legal challenges began on behalf of defendants disputing the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act and the Guidelines, the Commission was given the task of monitoring the effects of federal sentencing practices and revising amendments to the Guidelines if problems arose for congressional approval. In 1990, Congress directed the Commission to respond to a series of questions raised in regards to the Guidelines, the effects of mandatory minimums and options and options for Congress to exercise its legislative power in statutory directive and organization (1991 U.S.S.C. Report). The 1991 report was a “preliminary assessment of short-tem effects” of the Guidelines on federal sentencing practice (1991 U.S.S.C. Report). The report conducted empirical research study requested by Congress to “assess the effect of mandatory minimum sentencing provisions on the eliminating unwarranted sentencing disparity as well as description of the interaction between mandatory minimum sentencing provisions and plea agreements” (1991 U.S.S.C. Report).

Mandatory minimum sentences are the backbone of a racially unjust, overpopulated, and overpriced criminal justice system. The Smarter Sentencing Act is a bill that aims to reduce the mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug related offences. “The United States has five percent of the world’s population, and twenty five percent of the world’s prisoners. Our prison population has grown eight hundred percent in the last thirty years, mostly because of changes in state and federal sentencing laws, rather than increases in crimes. The burden of these sentences falls mostly on people of color (Hood).” This wave of mass incarceration is unfair and prejudice. More black men are imprisoned in the United States today than were enslaved in the 1850s. They are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and sentenced.

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).

Prior to the amendment of the Sentencing Reforming Act, Federal Judges had the freedom of imposing different length of sentence for each criminal. This resulted in a disparity among inmates on the length of time served. To prevent this, the sole purpose of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was to revise the federal criminal sentencing policy into a uniform guideline. The aim is to maintain integrity in the length of sentence in the justice system for each inmate, while providing judges the freedom to manipulate the length of sentence to better fit the crime.

Miscarriage of justice is reflected in various states across the nation, where there are far too many occurrences where individuals have been convicted of crimes and subjected to unfair mandatory sentencing. “Mandatory minimum sentencing laws require binding prison terms of a particular length for people convicted of certain federal and state crimes” (Famm, n.d.). “Mandatory minimum sentences imposed by statute are intended to achieve consistency in sentencing at the expense of individual consideration of the contextual sentencing factors” (Harvard Law Review, 2011). “These inflexible, one-size-fits-all sentencing laws may seem like a quick-fix solution for crime, but they undermine justice by preventing judges from fitting the punishment to the individual and the circumstances of their offense” (Famm, n.d) “Mandatory sentencing laws cause federal and state prison populations to soar, leading to overcrowding, exorbitant costs to taxpayers, and diversion of funds from law enforcement” (Famm, n.d.)

The author would have to say that the statistics coupled with the creation of the United States Sentencing Committee reveal that judicial discretion was at a much higher level prior to 1984, and has been on a decline as legislature has begun to regulate the discretion in which judges having in regard to sentencing in criminal cases. “Anderson, Kling, and Smith (1999) investigated 77,201 criminal cases decided between

In many cases we are forced to believe that the prison system is fair and equal to all, although that may not be the case. The prison system at first glance seems fair and equal but after looking closer you will find many times it’s not fair at all. For example, “an African American male could spend more time in jail for possession of crack than a white man with the same amount of powder cocaine” (Harmon 372). This is just one example of how society has been taken advantage of in the prison system. Some people are subject to years in prison although they should not be while others enjoy life even though they should be in prison. The injustice in the sentencing of prisoners is an ongoing problem in society, as some criminals get of easy for horrible crimes others criminals suffer unfairly all because of color of their skin.