ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Prawfs

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Commentary

: Prawfs

Subjective Experience and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

By Dan Markel, Ethan Leib, Rick Garnett, Matt Bodie, Paul Horwitz , Steve Vladeck, and Orly Lobel

ADVERTISEMENTS

In The Subjective Experience of Punishment, I argued that we ought to take better account of the different ways in which offenders experience punishment.  I noted, however, that the federal sentencing guidelines make it difficult for judges to do so by advising them not to consider a variety of offender characteristics that could inform their expectations about how prisoners will experience incarceration.  For example, the 2009 federal sentencing guidelines state that: ?Age (including youth) is not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted,? U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5H1.1 (2009); ?[m]ental and emotional conditions are not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted,? unless they affect culpability, id. § 5H1.3; and ?[p]hysical condition or appearance, including physique, is not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a departure may be warranted,? id. § 5H1.4.

Just a few months ago, however, amendments to the guidelines took effect and now make it easier for judges to consider such offender characteristics.  As I point out in this article (p. 154), the 2010 Federal Sentencing Guidelines state that: ?Age (including youth) may be relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted if considerations based on age, individually or in combination with other offender characteristics, are present to an unusual degree and distinguish the case from the typical cases covered by the guidelines.?  U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5H1.1 (2010) (emphasis added).  Similar revisions were made to provisions covering other offender characteristics, including their ?[m]ental and emotional conditions,? id. § 5H1.3, and ?[p]hysical condition or appearance,? id. § 5H1.4.

I'm not suggesting that the guidelines were amended in order to allow judges to better take subjective experience into account.  Nevertheless, I think that's a side effect of the amendments.  Incidentally, if you know of any active cases that clearly or dramatically implicate  concerns about the differential ways in which offenders experience punishment (like the recent case of a 6'9'', 500+ pound Dutch "giant"), I'd love to hear about them by email.

Full post as published by Prawfs on March 24, 2011 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0022 secs (from cache 11/01/26 03:49:04)