Our object all sublime - sentencing guidelines in federal justice administration

National Review, Oct 27, 1989

AT LONG LAST we can say something good about our nation's criminal-justice system: Year One in the federal experiment with " sentencing guidelines" has been a clear success. In lieu of the previous practice of simply setting maximum sentences for federal crimes and allowing judges unlimited discretion in sentencing convicted criminals to terms anywhere up to those limits (e.g., zero to twenty years), the guidelines set narrow ranges within which judges must sentence (e.g., ten to 12 years). Such ranges are based upon the nature of the offense and the criminal history of the offender. Only under extraordinary circumstances can judges disregard these guidelines. The new system's theoretical advantages have been borne out thus far in practice. First, the guidelines have prompted uniformity of sentencing. Felons committing essentially the same offense are no longer being sentenced to terms that can vary four- or five-fold depending upon the judges involved. Second, implementation of the guidelines has been accompanied by the abolition of parole.

Eight years under the guidelines means eight-yes eight-years in prison, not some lower figure determined by a Parole Board long after the details of the crime and its victims have been largely forgotten.

Third, federal judges and prosecutors are remarking on the guidelines' severity for the most serious offenses. Drug traffickers and armed criminals, for example, are being sentenced to terms far in excess of what they received prior to the guidelines-without parole. All this is heartening. But, for our part, virtually anything that reduces the unchecked discretion of federal judges enhances the rule of law and ought to be encouraged. Let the states now emulate these reforms in their own criminal-justice systems.