Running Head: Sentencing Reform Act 1984
Sentencing Reform Act 1984
Sentencing Reform Act 1984
Table of ContentsHistorical Background3Case History3Involvement
of Stakeholders4Alternative Decision5Rationale of Decision
making5Final Decision6Outcomes of Decision7Cost of Decision
making7Criticism7References9
Historical Background
A sentencing system for the adults was determined with some
sentencing guidelines and forwarded to Sentencing Guidelines
Commission, who directed the legislature to pass Sentencing Reform
Act (SRA) in 1981. The primary purpose to prove this act was to
ensure that all the criminals involved in similar kinds of crimes
and their nature and intensity of crime is of equal weight then
they must get sentence equally. Foremost importance was given to
the criminal record of the offender and find out the seriousness of
the crime before declaring the Act.
In 1982, the original grid of adult felony sentencing was
completed by the commission and the law was enacted by the
legislature in 1983. This act took effect for the crime that was
committed after July 1, 1984. For imposing the sentences for adults
felonies, there is codified chapter 9.94A RCW having guidelines and
procedures that guide the courts to suggest the punishment for the
crimes. There was a continuous process of advising the legislature
to make amendments in the sentencing structure on the part of the
commission.
There was an intermediate status of the sentences imposed for
the adult felonies in Washington prior to 1984. It was complete
discretion and jurisdiction of the courts whether to impose a
penalty or not and deciding on the length of sentence was too in
the discretion. The decision about releasing the offender within
his statutory period was in the total jurisdiction of The Board of
Prison Terms and Paroles. Still this applies to an inmate in more
than 750 prisons who committed a crime on July 1, 1984. The
releasing dates for the offender set by the Indeterminate Sentence
Review Boards.
Sentencing Reform Act was amended by legislature frequently
which included sentences of violent offenders, sex offenders, and
drug offenders. The longer sentences for the offenders were also
supported by citizens nationwide and in this act longer sentences
for the armed crime, nations first three strikes and youre out
measure are also included. With the changing in the prison terms,
there has been seen a remarkably prominent increase in the
population of prisons since 1984. In the year 1996 there was a
proposition of inclusion of Juvenile Disposition Standards to
Commission, who were serving the same sentences (Howell, 2004).
Case History
The primary compelling force behind the creation of sentencing
reform act was the resentment among the citizens and offenders that
previous justice system gives some extended powers to district
judges which creates the unjustified sentencing disparities.
With the introduction Sentencing Reform Act, there was provided
a constraint to the sentence discretion by grid system in which
sentences were already specified depending on the seriousness of
the crime of the offender. There were certain objectives behind the
guideline f Sentence Reform Act
Provision of certainty and fairness in the sentencing
process
To avoid the disparities among the sentences of those who were
found committing the same crimes but on the other hand it restrains
the power of individual decision if warranted by mitigating or
aggravating. If the actual factors are not taken into account in
deciding the sentence.
Moreover, this fact was also given consideration that there is
not set rule that could prescribe the accurate sentence for the
offender that is why some judicial discretion also kept in the
guidelines. According to guidelines, the sentence would be imposed
on the offender within the range of months which has described. The
district judge has the discretion that he could follow the
instruction and apply them or use his discretion and give the
sentence. If the factors and facts that are presented to judge see
aggravating or mitigating then he could use his discretion and
departure from guideline could increase or reduce the sentencing
period. But according to Sentencing Reform Act departure from the
guidelines would be a rare case. The United States Code
prescribes.
Sentence imposition is compulsory for court within the range
unless there are some aggravating and mitigating evidence found.
The degree of the offense is not given appropriate consideration by
Sentencing Commission while formulating law and guidelines that
would result in use judges discretion in imposing sentence.
However, the guidelines of SRA were kept mandatory to be followed
expect some atypical case appears. (Nussbaum, 2005)
Involvement of Stakeholders
While formulating the guideline there are some constraints where
given due consideration in all the guidelines would be consistent
with a provision of title 18 of United States Code. There has been
seen great ambiguity in explaining what this constraint meant.
There is one most possible explanation for it, which all the
guideline of the Sentencing Reform Act should be used and flowed as
compulsory. And all the sentences that have been imposed by courts
should be in close synchronization with the guidelines of
Sentencing Reform Act. Further, this Title 18 elucidate that all
the previous case of the offenders would be reexamined. They should
be given the proper criminal status according to prescribed
guideline of Sentencing Reform Act depending on the seriousness of
their crime. And after the revision of their illegal status the
commission would define the limit and nature of imprisonment of
criminal according to the guideline of the Sentencing Reform
Act.
Another important constraint of Sentencing Reform Act is 25
percent Rule which has been described as of major significance by
Senate Committee Report. The explanation of the section of
Sentencing Reform Act has been very ambiguous because of the manner
in which Commission has explained it and needed a lot of debates.
According to explanation this section prescribes that commission in
the guidelines have promulgated that there would be sentencing
range for the offenders in each category that should be in
pertinence to title 18 of United States Code. Another provision is
that if the sentence for any crime is link then the maximum
imprisonment given to the offender by the judge at his discretion
must be more. And not less than the maximum life imprisonment for
example if the minimum range of imprisonment is 30 years then the
maximum imprisonment should be life imprisonment.
So there are two pieces of evidence has been established by this
guideline that the maximum imprisonment for any crime should not
exceed than the 25% of minimum imprisonment of that particular
sentence. On the other hand, the maximum length of the long
imprisonment should be according to guidelines given by the
Sentencing Reform Act (isb.ussc.gov, 2011).
Alternative Decision
There is another way of deciding the sentences for the criminals
if the Commission has felt that that 25% rule does not relate to
the sentence guidelines stated. Then he can substitute the required
sentence within the same guidelines. For example, if the prescribed
guidelines of the imprisonment range are written 18-24 months and
commission thinks that it is not consistent with the 25% rule. Then
according to the written guidelines he can authorize the
incarcerated sentence of straight probation (Zero months
imprisonment). According to the guidelines prescribed it is
important that all the offenders should be allocated the specific
category depending on the seriousness of their crime Moreover there
should be specified the range of the sentence. The sentencing rule
should not violate the 25% rule of sentencing meaning the maximum
length of imprisonment should be 25% of the minimum length of
imprisonment.
Thus it is established that the rules and guideline made for the
sentencing of the defender must make uniquely, and every prisoner
must categorized under a particular category and then their range
of sentencing should decide. For the maximum length of
imprisonment, there should 25% rule followed and if 25% rule does
not apply then the non-incarcerated sentence is another option for
the prisoner. In the nutshell if the range of imprisonment is 18-24
month. Then the alternative guidelines for the sentence say that of
straight probation of 0-month imprisonment would not be allowed
because it violets the rule of 25% guidelines. In case of
alternative decision, the rule of 25% should not be violated.
By the Criminal Law committee of judicial Conference, the rule
of 25 percent has been evaluated to address the issues related to
it. The main purpose to identify that whether this rule applies to
the ultimate range of sentence defined for the offender. Or it uses
too for intermediate and offense level determination period that
lead to the final period of offense determination. In the 1995
there was a discretion given the court to decide the level among 1
to 4 by the list of relevant consideration. This rule of 25% is the
permissible mean of achieving the ultimate goals of the SRA
(Howell, 2004).
Rationale of Decision making
There have been defined four main categories of the offender by
the Sentencing Reform Act in addition to the constraints on the
decision-making process. These groups are separated based on the
seriousness of their crime and then the span of the crime has been
identified for them under this Act.
The first type of the offender has been identified by the
Sentencing Commission as the Career offenders. According to the SRA
in this category, those people would be included which involved in
violent crimes and drug trafficking. So the Commission has set some
guideline for such offenders under the law these people would be
subject to face the maximum imprisonment. There was also an
amendment in the sentence of these offenders by the commission that
they directed through the Department of Justice initiated legal
challenges.
There is another category of offenders with substantial
imprisonment. This group includes the further five categories of
the offender that involved in the crimes of a serious nature. (1)
Offenders who have a history of conducting the serious offenses.
(2) That offender who earn their livelihood by performing the
attacks. (3) Managers and supervisors of the organizations who
found in the activity of racketeering. (4) That offender who were
on bail release but they still conducted the violent felony. (5)
Drug traffickers. So there are different directives and sentences
compiled for the people who come under such categories, and there
is offense level of 13 is kept for those who were found involved in
criminal activities for the livelihood.
Another category of the offenders is those who participated in
those crimes which cause body injuries to the victims so according
to the commission there are directive to judges to suggest general
appropriate imprisonment or sentence for such criminals. This
directive form the Commission has issued under their activities of
making a choice regarding the offense level and particular offense
characteristics.
There is another category of offenders in which the offender is
the new in crime and has committed his first crime. Then under
their spectrum of selecting the appropriate sentence for the
criminal other than imprisonment has included that such criminal
should not be given severe sentences but more emphasis would be on
the rehabilitation of such defendants. Tough this step of the
Sentencing Commission has opened a new debate but this move was
also appreciated. The primary purpose of the sentencing reform act
is not the put maximum people in the jail but to give them justice
(Fallen, 1987).
Final Decision
On the basis of the decision of Sentencing Commission regarding
the sentences of the offender. There was a statement of Supreme
Court that the specific and detailed constitutional requirements
met after the delegation of authority to Sentencing Commission by
Congress. Sentencing Reform Act is quite simple in it composition
sis self-explanatory of the goals that were achieved by the
sentencing reform act but also the purpose of the Act is very
clear. The decision of commission also gives a clear picture of
tools that would be used to implement this Act. The courts have
also noticed the guidance that were provided by the Sentencing
Commission and its legislative history and concluded that there was
significant direction was given to the decision making process.
It was very hectic task for the judges to define the penalties
and sentences for the criminals that categorized in limitless
categories. That is why the delegation of authority to identify
certain groups of criminals, and their sentences was an appropriate
move.
Minimal standards set for do the Congress, and there are also
limited powers to the courts for making their decision and imposing
sentence on the criminals on which they were unanimous previously.
Tough this was not a complete departure from the previous practices
there were some discretion till with the courts. When the
congressional policy is to be accomplished then there is no need
for adaptability to changing conditions by the Congress at the
highest degree possible nor even according to a specific formula
(Mihm, 1997).
Outcomes of Decision
To determine what would be the policy to solve the problem then
sentencing is considered as the expression of the public policy
while Congress considered as the barometer to address the many
issues of the nation. According to the Sentences Reform Act there
was seen a shift from the sentencing to rehabilitation, retribution
and deterrence that describes. The foremost purpose of the act was
to protect the society and move the attention of public to protect
the offender and victim and society overall. Giving the sentence to
the offender, sometimes does not resolve the issue. They need more
than punishment because after getting punishment they go outside
and again commit a crime. More emphasis was given to their
rehabilitation so that they go in society and be a better member of
the community (Clark, 2004).
Cost of Decision making
This Sentencing Reform Act has been proved to be very economical
because in the previous procedures. There were a lot of categories
of offenders and millions of the penalties that were painful to
remember. That is why time taken for decision-making process was
very long and sometimes the judges were not able to define in which
category they should include the criminal what penalties should be
applied to them. Moreover, sometimes they used their discretion to
give them sentences that create un-justification among various
criminals. Who were having same crime but According to Sentencing
Reform Act, there are certain defined categories of the offender
and every criminal who has committed a crime of same nature as the
other one would punished equally. This Act has not only reduced the
tie of decision-making but the cost incurred in the decision-making
process has also been reduced to the Sentencing Reform Act. So it
can be said the cost of the decision in by the Sentencing Reform
Act is very economical (Ussc.gov, 2015).
Criticism
As like other Acts presented over the period of the time
Sentencing Reform Act has also faced a lot of criticism on it
structure. There is no foundation for this comment that raised
about the delegation of authority to Sentencing Commission for
making the Act by the Congress. According to critics, the question
arises were Congress the entity to channel the judicial discretion
by structuring the guidelines for sentencing. They say that
delegation of authority for the formulation of law in
unconstitutional and the legislature must himself address the
nations issues and amend the laws. There were also eyebrows raised
on the issue of separation of power between legislature and
judiciary. According to the critic, this Act would reduce the
rights of offenders and diminish the unquestionable exercise of
authority and control of Congress. They are not criticizing because
they think they Congress wanted to fix something unbroken, but they
think that there would be a disparity in sentencing which would be
unfair to both offender and society.
The critics are not criticizing the act because of the wrong
method used by Congress to correct the problem. The judicial
discretion in the past was to give the sentences to criminals who
were having same nature and intensity of the crime? But they were
given different sentences due to the plethora of many other
underline reasons that have to keep in mind deciding the sentence
and this thing has overlooked in this Act.
Indeed, the underlying reason for facing such an enormous amount
of criticism is due to the procedure of making the amendments in
the law and correcting the problem. Moreover, Congress seemed to
overlook setting any accountability while formulating and imposing
the guidelines for sentencing. They have insulated themselves by
keeping themselves way from the formulation of guidelines for
punishment and have given authority to the third part that could
not be reached by vote (Frase, 2014).
References
Clark, R. (2004). Sentencing Reform Lessons: From the Sentencing
Reform Act of 1984 to the Feeney Amendment.The Journal Of Criminal
Law And Criminology (1973-),94(4), 1069. doi:10.2307/3491416
Fallen, D. (1987).sentencing practices under the sentencing
reform act.www.ncjrs.gov. Retrieved 1 May 2015, from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/118186NCJRS.pdf
Frase, R. (2014). Recurring Policy Issues of Guidelines (and non
-Guidelines) Sentencing.Federal Sentencing Reporter,26(3), 145-157.
doi:10.1525/fsr.2014.26.3.145
Howell, R. (2004). Sentencing Reform Lessons: From the
Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 to the Feeney Amendment.The Journal
Of Criminal Law And Criminology (1973-),94(4), 1069.
doi:10.2307/3491416
Howell, R. (2004). Sentencing Reform Lessons: From the
Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 to the Feeney Amendment.The Journal
Of Criminal Law And Criminology (1973-),94(4), 1069.
doi:10.2307/3491416
isb.ussc.gov,. (2011).An Overview of the UNITED STATES
SENTENCING COMMISSION. Retrieved 1 May 2015, from
http://isb.ussc.gov/files/USSC_Overview.pdf
Mihm, M. (1997). The Roles and Responsibilities of the Judiciary
in the Implementation of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.Federal
Sentencing Reporter,10(1), 6-8. doi:10.2307/20640024
Nussbaum, L. (2005). Sentencing in Washington after Blakely v.
Washington.Federal Sentencing Reporter,18(1), 23-28.
doi:10.1525/fsr.2005.18.1.23
Ussc.gov,. (2015).Simplification Draft Paper | United States
Sentencing Commission. Retrieved 1 May 2015, from
http://www.ussc.gov/research-and-publications/working-group-reports/simplification/simplification-draft-paper-2
