For nearly 20 years, federal judges were required to follow special rules when sentencing defendants convicted of crimes. These rules are known as federal sentencing guidelines, and they gave a range for jail time and fines based on the nature of the crime and the defendant’s criminal history. The sentence was required to fall within the range specified in the guidelines, with only a few exceptions.
However, in 2005 the Supreme Court declared that the mandatory nature of the guidelines was unconstitutional. The Court’s decision had two major effects. First, it made the federal sentencing guidelines purely advisory. This means that federal judges now have discretion to determine sentences.
The other major effect of the Supreme Court’s decision is that since judges are now given a choice when making a sentencing decision, that decision must be reasonable. Therefore, a sentence can be appealed to the next court for review. The decision can be appealed by either the prosecution or the defendant.
Recent studies have shown that most judges’ decisions still fall within the federal sentencing guidelines. However, the Supreme Court’s decision has brought an element of fairness to the sentencing process.
Last Modified: 01-27-2012 02:13 PM PSTLaw Library Disclaimer
We've helped more than 4 million clients find the right lawyer – for free. Present your case online in minutes. LegalMatch matches you to pre-screened lawyers in your city or county based on the specifics of your case. Within 24 hours experienced local lawyers review it and evaluate if you have a solid case. If so, attorneys respond with an offer to represent you that includes a full attorney profile with details on their fee structure, background, and ratings by other LegalMatch users so you can decide if they're the right lawyer for you.