Federal Sentencing Guidelines

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are rules that set out a uniform sentencing policy for convicted defendants in the United States federal court system. The Guidelines are the product of the United States Sentencing Commission and are part of an overall federal sentencing reform package that took effect in the mid-1980s. The package was intended to provide determinate sentencing. This refers to sentencing whose actual limits are determined at the time sentence is imposed as opposed to indeterminate sentencing in which a sentence with a maximum (and, perhaps, a minimum) is pronounced but the actual sentence is setermined by a parole commission or similar administrative body after the person has started serving their sentence. In general, indeterminate sentences are believed to support the rehabilitation and specific deterrence models of sentencing while determinate sentences are believed to support the general deterrence and just desserts models of sentencing. The federal effort followed guidlines activities in several states, notably Minnesota. Minnesota's Sentencing Guidelines Commission, however, initially sought consciously not to increase prison capacity through guidlines. That is, Minnesota assumed that the legislature should determine how much would be spent on prisons and that the sentencing commission's job was to allocate those prison beds in as rational a way as possible. The federal effort took the opposite approach. It determined how many prisons would be needed and essentially Congress was then required to fund those beds.

Though the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were styled as mandatory, the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Booker v. United States found that the Guidelines, as originally constituted, violated the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury, and the remedy chosen was excision of those provisions of the law establishing the Guidelines that made them mandatory standards. In the aftermath of Booker, the Guidelines are discretionary, meaning that judges consider them but are not required to adhere to their standards in sentencing decisions.

See Also

• Apprendi v. New Jersey
  
• Blakely v. Washington
  
• Stephen Breyer