Jump to content

United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bility (talk | contribs) at 20:37, 17 February 2010 (→‎Sentencing table: coloring in zones). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are rules that set out a uniform sentencing policy for those convicted of felonies and serious (Class A) misdemeanors[1] in the United States federal courts system. The Guidelines do not apply to less serious misdemeanors.[2]

History

Enabling legislation

The Guidelines are the product of the United States Sentencing Commission, which was created by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.[3] The Guidelines' primary goal was to alleviate sentencing disparities that research had indicated was prevalent in the existing sentencing system, and the guidelines reform was specifically intended to provide for determinate sentencing. This refers to sentencing whose actual limits are determined at the time the 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 determined by a parole commission or similar administrative body after the person has started serving their sentence. As part of the guidelines reform, parole was abolished.

The federal effort followed guidelines projects in several states, initially funded by the United States Department of Justice, and led by Jack Kress and his research team during the late 1970s. The first sentencing guidelines jurisdictions were countywide, in Denver (Colorado), Newark, New Jersey, Chicago (Illinois) and Philadelphia (Pennsylvania). Statewide guidelines systems were next established in Utah, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Michigan, Washington, and Delaware, before the federal sentencing guidelines were formally adopted in 1987. Given that the vast majority of criminal sentencing is done at the state level, the American Law Institute and the American Bar Association have each recommended such systems for all the states, and nearly half the states presently have such systems, although significant variations exist among them. For example, Minnesota's Sentencing Guidelines Commission initially sought consciously not to increase prison capacity through guidelines. 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 Congress was then essentially required to fund those beds.

Promulgation and modification

In drafting the first set of guidelines, the Commission used data drawn from 10,000 presentence investigations, the differing elements of various crimes as distinguished in substantive criminal statutes, the United States Parole Commission’s guidelines and statistics, and data from other sources in order to determine which distinctions were important in pre-guidelines practice.[4] Sentencing criteria already in use by judges was thus codified as guidelines. The Commission essentially codified existing practice. Future modifications often reflected Congressional mandates, as in the case of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 that imposed increased and mandatory minimum sentences.

United States v. Booker

Though the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were styled as mandatory, the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in United States v. Booker 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 as mandatory. In the aftermath of Booker and other Supreme Court cases, such as Blakely v. Washington (2004), Guidelines are now considered advisory only, on both the federal and the state levels. Judges must calculate the guidelines and consider them when determining a sentence but are not required to issue sentences within the guidelines. Those sentences are still, however, subject to appellate review.

Guidelines basics

The Guidelines determine sentences based primarily on two factors:

  1. the conduct associated with the offense (the offense conduct, which produces the offense level)
  2. the defendant's criminal history (the criminal history category)

The Sentencing Table [1] in the Guidelines Manual [2] shows the relationship between these two factors; for each pairing of offense level and criminal history category, the Table specifies a sentencing range, in months, within which the court may sentence a defendant. For example, for a defendant convicted on an offense with a total offense level of 22 and a criminal history category of I, the Guidelines recommend a sentence of 41–51 months, considering the year of the offense to be the same as the year of the guidelines. If, however, a person with an extensive criminal history (Category VI) committed the same offense in the same manner in the same modern timeline and not during the older guideline periods, the Guidelines would recommend a sentence of 84–105 months. [3]

Adjustments

There are victim-related adjustments for hate crime motivation or vulnerable victims; official victims; restraint of victims; and terrorism. Adjustments can apply depending on the offender's role in the offense, which can include an aggravating role, a mitigating role. Enhancements apply for abuse of a position of trust or use of a special skill, using a minor to commit a crime, and use of body armor in drug trafficking crimes and crimes of violence.

In addition, there are enhancements related to obstruction of justice, including obstructing or impeding the administration of justice, reckless endangerment during flight, commission of an offense while on release, and false registration of a domain name.

Adjustments also apply in cases involving multiple counts.

A 2- or 3-level offense level decrease is typically granted for acceptance of responsibility if the defendant accepts a plea bargain. However, the decrease will not apply if the defendant demonstrates behavior, such as continued criminal activity, that is inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility.[5]

Departures

Departures upward or downward from the guideline range are appropriate for cases that deviate from the heartland of cases.

Departures are allowed in cases involving substantial assistance to authorities. Indeed, the Sentencing Reform Act even allows a departure below the applicable statutory mandatory minimum in such cases.[6] There is no penalty for refusal to assist authorities.

Other grounds for departure include death, physical injury, extreme psychological injury, property damage or loss resulting from the offense; abduction or unlawful restraint; weapons and dangerous instrumentalities; disruption of governmental function; extreme conduct; criminal purpose; victim's conduct; lesser harms; coercion and duress; diminished capacity; public welfare; voluntary disclosure of offense; semiautomatic firearms capable of accepting large capacity magazines; violent street gangs; aberrant behavior; dismissed and uncharged conduct; discharged terms of imprisonment; and commission of offense while wearing or displaying unauthorized or counterfeit insignia or uniform.

Controversies

Among the controversial aspects of the Sentencing Guidelines have been the 100:1 disparity between treatment of crack and cocaine (which has been amended) and the immigration guidelines which call for hefty enhancements for illegal re-entrants with prior felony records, despite the prior offenses already being taken into account via the Criminal History Category.[7][8] Heavy penalties for child pornography offenders have also come under fire. Many judges are refusing to apply the Guidelines in these cases.[9]

Sentencing table

The sentencing table is an integral part of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.[10]

The Offense Level (1-43) forms the vertical axis of the Sentencing Table. The Criminal History Category (I-VI) forms the horizontal axis of the Table. The intersection of the Offense Level and Criminal History Category displays the Guideline Range in months of imprisonment. "Life" means life imprisonment. For example, the guideline range applicable to a defendant with an Offense Level of 15 and a Criminal History Category of III is 24-30 months of imprisonment.

Offense level Criminal History Category (Criminal History Points)
I
(0 or 1)		 II
(2 or 3)		 III
(4,5,6)		 IV
(7,8,9)		 V
(10,11,12)		 VI
(13 or more)
Zone A 1 0-6 0-6 0-6 0-6 0-6 0-6
2 0-6 0-6 0-6 0-6 0-6 1-7
3 0-6 0-6 0-6 0-6 2-8 3-9
4 0-6 0-6 0-6 2-8 4-10 6-12
5 0-6 0-6 1-7 4-10 6-12 9-15
6 0-6 1-7 2-8 6-12 9-15 12-18
7 0-6 2-8 4-10 8-14 12-18 15-21
8 0-6 4-10 6-12 10-16 15-21 18-24
Zone B 9 4-10 6-12 8-14 12-18 18-24 21-27
10 6-12 8-14 10-16 15-21 21-27 24-30
Zone C 11 8-14 10-16 12-18 18-24 24-30 27-33
12 10-16 12-18 15-21 21-27 27-33 30-37
Zone D 13 12-18 15-21 18-24 24-30 30-37 33-41
14 15-21 18-24 21-27 27-33 33-41 37-46
15 18-24 21-27 24-30 30-37 37-46 41-51
16 21-27 24-30 27-33 33-41 41-51 46-57
17 24-30 27-33 30-37 37-46 46-57 51-63
18 27-33 30-37 33-41 41-51 51-63 57-71
19 30-37 33-41 37-46 46-57 57-71 63-78
20 33-41 37-46 41-51 51-63 63-78 70-87
21 37-46 41-51 46-57 57-71 70-87 77-96
22 41-51 46-57 51-63 63-78 77-96 84-105
23 46-57 51-63 57-71 70-87 84-105 92-115
24 51-63 57-71 63-78 77-96 92-115 100-125
25 57-71 63-78 70-87 84-105 100-125 110-137
26 63-78 70-87 78-97 92-115 110-137 120-150
27 70-87 78-97 87-108 100-125 120-150 130-162
28 78-97 87-108 97-121 110-137 130-162 140-175
29 87-108 97-121 108-135 121-151 140-175 151-188
30 97-121 108-135 121-151 135-168 151-188 168-210
31 108-135 121-151 135-168 151-188 168-210 188-235
32 121-151 135-168 151-188 168-210 188-235 210-262
33 135-168 151-188 168-210 188-235 210-262 235-293
34 151-188 168-210 188-235 210-262 235-293 262-327
35 168-210 188-235 210-262 235-293 262-327 292-365
36 188-235 210-262 235-293 262-327 292-365 324-405
37 210-262 235-293 262-327 292-365 324-405 360-life
38 235-293 262-327 292-365 324-405 360-life 360-life
39 262-327 292-365 324-405 360-life 360-life 360-life
40 292-365 324-405 360-life 360-life 360-life 360-life
41 324-405 360-life 360-life 360-life 360-life 360-life
42 360-life 360-life 360-life 360-life 360-life 360-life
43 life life life life life life

See also

References

  1. ^ "U.S.S.G. §2X5.2", 2009 Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual
  2. ^ "U.S.S.G. §1B1.9", 2009 Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual
  3. ^ "Introduction to the Sentencing Reform Act" (PDF). U.S. Sentencing Commission.
  4. ^ "U.S.S.G. §1A", 2009 Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual
  5. ^ U.S.S.G. §3E1.1
  6. ^ 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e)
  7. ^ "U.S.S.G. §2L1.2", 2009 Federal Sentencing Guidelines
  8. ^ Survey of Article III Judges (PDF), p. 4
  9. ^ Federal judges argue for reduced sentences for child-porn convicts, The Denver Post, November 29, 2009
  10. ^ "U.S.S.G. §5A", 2009 Federal Sentencing Guidelines

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines&oldid=344679818"