Criminal Sentencing Reforms and Proposals

Previously before criminal sentencing reforms, federal judges had extremely wide discretion in sentencing, and that they were free to enforce any sentence varying from probation to the statutory maximum. The offenders had no meaningful appeal of the sentence. The sentencing depended on the judge’s understanding of the concept of justice and the purpose of sentencing. Sentences on similar offenses differed greatly depending on the sitting judge. The reforms were proposed to promote honesty in sentencing and to reduce unjustifiable big sentencing variations. Honesty in sentencing was mainly referring to the effect of parole. It was not uncommon for the lawbreaker sentenced to ten years to be released after serving three years under the parole system. The parole system was to be abolished to pave the way for a real-time sentencing system, where a judge imposes a sentence that should actually be served by a lawbreaker; subject to minor adjustments.

It was to be addressed the problem of unnecessary sentencing variations through the creation of a commission and directing it to come up with sentencing rules to reduce and structure the sentencing powers of the federal judges. The commission was to include seven members, all under presidential appointment and approved by the senate. Three slots were allocated to federal judges, and the four slots were to be filled by commissioners affiliated with a major political party. The reforms guidelines were to be neutral on sex, race, national creed, and socioeconomic status of the lawbreaker. The guidelines were to observe the improperness of considering education, employment, occupational skills, family linkages and duties, and community linkages of the lawbreaker in making decisions about the length of the sentence.