Guidelines are not enough

The need for written sentencing opinions

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Guideline sentencing systems, including the new federal guidelines, have not settled on a clear conception of when and how a trial judge should explain sentences. Indeterminate sentencing systems did not have a tradition of written sentencing decisions and recent sentencing reforms do not focus on the trial judge's role. This article suggests the many advantages of written sentencing opinions. Initial experience under the federal sentencing guidelines bolsters the conclusion that written sentencing opinions in appropriate cases - including both sentences 'within' guidelines and guideline 'departures' - are the next step in the evolving law of sentencing and the best way to recognize trial judges as an essential engine of principled change.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3-24
Number of pages22
JournalBehavioral Sciences and the Law
Volume7
Issue number1
StatePublished - 1989
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Guidelines
reform
Law
experience

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)
  • Applied Psychology
  • Law

Cite this

Guidelines are not enough : The need for written sentencing opinions. / Miller, Marc L.

In: Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1989, p. 3-24.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{572ef196610d42919f042028d3980c03,
title = "Guidelines are not enough: The need for written sentencing opinions",
abstract = "Guideline sentencing systems, including the new federal guidelines, have not settled on a clear conception of when and how a trial judge should explain sentences. Indeterminate sentencing systems did not have a tradition of written sentencing decisions and recent sentencing reforms do not focus on the trial judge's role. This article suggests the many advantages of written sentencing opinions. Initial experience under the federal sentencing guidelines bolsters the conclusion that written sentencing opinions in appropriate cases - including both sentences 'within' guidelines and guideline 'departures' - are the next step in the evolving law of sentencing and the best way to recognize trial judges as an essential engine of principled change.",
author = "Miller, {Marc L}",
year = "1989",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "3--24",
journal = "Behavioral Sciences and the Law",
issn = "0735-3936",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Guidelines are not enough

T2 - The need for written sentencing opinions

AU - Miller, Marc L

PY - 1989

Y1 - 1989

N2 - Guideline sentencing systems, including the new federal guidelines, have not settled on a clear conception of when and how a trial judge should explain sentences. Indeterminate sentencing systems did not have a tradition of written sentencing decisions and recent sentencing reforms do not focus on the trial judge's role. This article suggests the many advantages of written sentencing opinions. Initial experience under the federal sentencing guidelines bolsters the conclusion that written sentencing opinions in appropriate cases - including both sentences 'within' guidelines and guideline 'departures' - are the next step in the evolving law of sentencing and the best way to recognize trial judges as an essential engine of principled change.

AB - Guideline sentencing systems, including the new federal guidelines, have not settled on a clear conception of when and how a trial judge should explain sentences. Indeterminate sentencing systems did not have a tradition of written sentencing decisions and recent sentencing reforms do not focus on the trial judge's role. This article suggests the many advantages of written sentencing opinions. Initial experience under the federal sentencing guidelines bolsters the conclusion that written sentencing opinions in appropriate cases - including both sentences 'within' guidelines and guideline 'departures' - are the next step in the evolving law of sentencing and the best way to recognize trial judges as an essential engine of principled change.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0024603453&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0024603453&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 3

EP - 24

JO - Behavioral Sciences and the Law

JF - Behavioral Sciences and the Law

SN - 0735-3936

IS - 1

ER -