INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF

SENTENCING:

“THE AMERICAN MODEL”

 TOPICS COVERED
 INTRODUCTION
 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF SENTENCING
 US SENTENCING MODEL
 SENTENCING COMMISSION
 STRUCTURE OF FEDERAL GUIDELINES
 LANDMARK CASES
 CRITICISMS
 CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
The Judge even when he is free is still not
wholly free. He is not to innovate at
pleasure. He is not a knight errant
roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal
of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his
inspiration from consecrated principles.
He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment,
to vague and unregulated benevolence. He
is to exercise a discretion informed by
tradition, methodized by analogy,
disciplined by system, and subordinated to
“the primordial necessity of order in social
life.”

-Benjamin N. Cardozo
 OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE OF
SENTENCING
 Sentencing is all about imposing punishment on individuals who have been
found guilty of criminal behavior
 The Judges are like trained minds on whom individuals of society repose their
trust and confidence.
 They decide that whether the convicted defendant is liable for the crime of
which he has been accused of.
 Take appropriate actions if held liable.
 They choose an acceptable punishment from among the many allowed by law
in a given case which has a far-reaching implications for both the actual
perpetrator and community as a whole.
 The decisions made by them are highly respectable but they often try to make
individual choices with respect to the persons who appear before them.
 UNITED STATES
SENTENCING MODEL
 No instruction for judges on how to use their enormous
discretionary authority prior to the implementation of judicial
sentencing guidelines

 In the early 1970s, there was an increasing dissatisfaction with

undetermined sentencing measures, which led to a change in the
nation's sentencing rules.

 The vast disparities in sentencing fueled public outrage at unfair

sentencing, leading to the establishment of the Sentencing
Commission, an administrative body tasked with developing
sentencing guidelines.
 After the enactment of Bipartisan Sentencing Reform Act
of 1984, the United States Sentencing Commission was
established, and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were
enacted to stress upon justice, continuity, punishment,
incapacitation, and deterrence in sentencing. The
commission's came into force in the year 1987.
 The United States Sentencing Commission's Guidelines were designed
to reduce "unjustified variation" in punishment depending on class, sex,
and culture, as well as to provide greater consistency among court of
federal jurisdictions. Seeking consistency in punishment was the main
purpose. This could be achieved by narrowing down the broad gap of
penalties levied by various federal courts for similar criminal activity
committed by similar offenders.

 Under this the criminals of identical histories and convictions were

given similar penalties, regardless of race, social class, or geographic
area. The rules regarding the federal sentencing guidelines were set up
in the manuals.
STRUCTURE OF FEDERAL
GUIDELINES
 Once it has been decided by court that an offender’s penalty
range is this, the judge’s power to impose sentence within that
range get virtually unrestricted. To impose sentence beyond that
range, the judge has to give specific reasons as to aggravating or
mitigating factors. But, both the rules regarding defining the
guideline range and judge’s discretion can be appealed in a court
of law by any of the parties.
 The sentencing guidelines were struck down in the case of United

States vs. Booker case because they could result in a conviction based

on facts that were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt before a

jury, which would be a breach of the Sixth Amendment of United

States of America. The court held in this case that in order to be valid

and constitutional, the federal sentencing guidelines must be

advisory rather than presumptive. This was also held in the case of

United States vs. Fanfan. But judges could still consider these

guidelines while determining sentences. However, the reasons have

to be provided for using discretion and it can appealed too.

 Federal judges' power has also been

enhanced. A lot of people claim that all

these rulings have increased the sparsity

and have led to lack of fairness and

uniformity in sentencing between district

courts. An unjustified discrimination was

done depending on defendants' social

class characteristics. One of the key goals

of federal sentencing legislation was to

reduce these unjustified disparities, but

after the case of Booker everything has

since then changed on disparity and it

remains to be one of the most pressing

issues faced by sentencing policymakers.

 CRITICISM OF US SENTENCING MODEL

 While the US guideline programmes have been effective in restricting

sentencing discretion to some degree, there is a global view that penalty
ranges are too limited and enforcement requirements are too stringent. This is
the reason why the US guidelines have been unpopular in other countries.
The Guidelines have been called "a dismal embarrassment," "a ridiculous act,"
and "out of order". The decisions are being taken behind closed doors and
being manipulated. The guidelines are too difficult to apply appropriately in
tough situations. It cannot be fairly applied because only the crime, criminal
behavior and previous criminal record are taken into consideration and not
any other circumstances. Due to these reasons it can be said that the
guidelines have failed to reduce sentencing disparity as well as its too severe.
 CONCLUSION

 The United States Sentencing Guidelines are by far the most progressive
efforts to regulate sentencing discretion.
 It has been found in research that discretion and substantive rationality done
by judges did not actually resulted in increased extralegal inequality in the
post-Booker or post-Gall eras.
 After the judgment in the case of Booker, the guidelines still continued to
shape federal sentencing wherein the courts must continue to measure and
consider them.
 Also the judges must have constitutionally defensible arguments for deviating
from them. These guidelines now have a legal standing similar to those of
certain state sentencing guidelines.
 CONCLUSION

 It has proved to be the most important factor in federal sentencing

because they are effective at reducing ambiguity.
 This indicates that judges continue to see the guidelines as useful
moral and substantive mechanisms for making sentencing
decisions.
 It is certainly better for them to abide by the regulations most of
the time than not to.
 As a result, the guidelines are likely to continue to be a power of
normative isomorphism.
THANK YOU !
PRESENTED BY : EKTA
CHANDRAKAR