Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Prawfs
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Legal Commentary
: PrawfsSubjective Experience and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
By Dan Markel, Ethan Leib, Rick Garnett, Matt Bodie, Paul Horwitz , Steve Vladeck, and Orly Lobel
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).
Privacy Protection Act 42 USC 21A
Federal Newsroom Law
Federal Adoption Tax Credit
Financial Incentive for Adoptive Parents
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TEA-21 - Plus Law 105-178
Taylor Bean Faces Federal WARN Class Action
Taylor Bean Federal Employment Class Action Filed
Arrow Trucking Hit with Federal Lawsuit by Employees
Arrow Trucking Hit with Federal Lawsuit by Employees
California Talent Agency, Be Productions, Faces Federal Class Action
California Talent Agency, Be Productions, Faces Federal Class Action
Parents Bring Federal Lawsuit After Tainted Baby Formula Injures Newborn
Parents Bring Federal Lawsuit After Tainted Baby Formula Injures Newborn
Federal Government
alleging discrimination against black farmers
Federal National Mortgage Association
401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are dead, long live the federal sentencing guidelines!
Federal Sentencing Commission Modifies Sentencing Guidelines Pertaining to Organizations
Effective media coverage of the new proposed federal sentencing guidelines
In Missouri, it is the prosecutors complaining about sentencing guidelines
Tenth Edition of "An Introduction to Federal Sentencing" Now Available
Show me the role reversal when sentencing guidelines are more lenient







