Running Head: Sentencing Reform Act 1984

Sentencing Reform Act 1984

Sentencing Reform Act 1984

Table of Contents
Historical Background.....................................................................................................................3
Case History.....................................................................................................................................3
Involvement of Stakeholders...........................................................................................................4
Alternative Decision........................................................................................................................5
Rationale of Decision making.........................................................................................................5
Final Decision..................................................................................................................................6
Outcomes of Decision......................................................................................................................7
Cost of Decision making.................................................................................................................7
Criticism..........................................................................................................................................7
References........................................................................................................................................9

Sentencing Reform Act 1984

Historical Background
A sentencing system for the adults was determined with some sentencing guidelines and
forwarded to Sentencing Guidelines Commission, who directed the legislature to pass Sentencing
Reform Act (SRA) in 1981. The primary purpose to prove this act was to ensure that all the
criminals involved in similar kinds of crimes and their nature and intensity of crime is of equal
weight then they must get sentence equally. Foremost importance was given to the criminal
record of the offender and find out the seriousness of the crime before declaring the Act.
In 1982, the original grid of adult felony sentencing was completed by the commission and the
law was enacted by the legislature in 1983. This act took effect for the crime that was committed
after July 1, 1984. For imposing the sentences for adults felonies, there is codified chapter 9.94A
RCW having guidelines and procedures that guide the courts to suggest the punishment for the
crimes. There was a continuous process of advising the legislature to make amendments in the
sentencing structure on the part of the commission.
There was an intermediate status of the sentences imposed for the adult felonies in Washington
prior to 1984. It was complete discretion and jurisdiction of the courts whether to impose a
penalty or not and deciding on the length of sentence was too in the discretion. The decision
about releasing the offender within his statutory period was in the total jurisdiction of The Board
of Prison Terms and Paroles. Still this applies to an inmate in more than 750 prisons who
committed a crime on July 1, 1984. The releasing dates for the offender set by the Indeterminate
Sentence Review Boards.
Sentencing Reform Act was amended by legislature frequently which included sentences of
violent offenders, sex offenders, and drug offenders. The longer sentences for the offenders were

Sentencing Reform Act 1984

also supported by citizens nationwide and in this act longer sentences for the armed crime,
nations first three strikes and youre out measure are also included. With the changing in the
prison terms, there has been seen a remarkably prominent increase in the population of prisons
since 1984. In the year 1996 there was a proposition of inclusion of Juvenile Disposition
Standards to Commission, who were serving the same sentences (Howell, 2004).

Case History
The primary compelling force behind the creation of sentencing reform act was the resentment
among the citizens and offenders that previous justice system gives some extended powers to
district judges which creates the unjustified sentencing disparities.
With the introduction Sentencing Reform Act, there was provided a constraint to the sentence
discretion by grid system in which sentences were already specified depending on the
seriousness of the crime of the offender. There were certain objectives behind the guideline f
Sentence Reform Act
Provision of certainty and fairness in the sentencing process
To avoid the disparities among the sentences of those who were found committing the same
crimes but on the other hand it restrains the power of individual decision if warranted by
mitigating or aggravating. If the actual factors are not taken into account in deciding the
sentence.
Moreover, this fact was also given consideration that there is not set rule that could prescribe the
accurate sentence for the offender that is why some judicial discretion also kept in the guidelines.
According to guidelines, the sentence would be imposed on the offender within the range of

Sentencing Reform Act 1984

months which has described. The district judge has the discretion that he could follow the
instruction and apply them or use his discretion and give the sentence. If the factors and facts that
are presented to judge see aggravating or mitigating then he could use his discretion and
departure from guideline could increase or reduce the sentencing period. But according to
Sentencing Reform Act departure from the guidelines would be a rare case. The United States
Code prescribes.
Sentence imposition is compulsory for court within the range unless there are some aggravating
and mitigating evidence found. The degree of the offense is not given appropriate consideration
by Sentencing Commission while formulating law and guidelines that would result in use judges
discretion in imposing sentence. However, the guidelines of SRA were kept mandatory to be
followed expect some atypical case appears. (Nussbaum, 2005)

Involvement of Stakeholders
While formulating the guideline there are some constraints where given due consideration in all
the guidelines would be consistent with a provision of title 18 of United States Code. There has
been seen great ambiguity in explaining what this constraint meant. There is one most possible
explanation for it, which all the guideline of the Sentencing Reform Act should be used and
flowed as compulsory. And all the sentences that have been imposed by courts should be in close
synchronization with the guidelines of Sentencing Reform Act. Further, this Title 18 elucidate
that all the previous case of the offenders would be reexamined. They should be given the
proper criminal status according to prescribed guideline of Sentencing Reform Act depending on
the seriousness of their crime. And after the revision of their illegal status the commission would

Sentencing Reform Act 1984

define the limit and nature of imprisonment of criminal according to the guideline of the
Sentencing Reform Act.
Another important constraint of Sentencing Reform Act is 25 percent Rule which has been
described as of major significance by Senate Committee Report. The explanation of the section
of Sentencing Reform Act has been very ambiguous because of the manner in which
Commission has explained it and needed a lot of debates. According to explanation this section
prescribes that commission in the guidelines have promulgated that there would be sentencing
range for the offenders in each category that should be in pertinence to title 18 of United States
Code. Another provision is that if the sentence for any crime is link then the maximum
imprisonment given to the offender by the judge at his discretion must be more. And not less
than the maximum life imprisonment for example if the minimum range of imprisonment is 30
years then the maximum imprisonment should be life imprisonment.

So there are two pieces of evidence has been established by this guideline that the maximum
imprisonment for any crime should not exceed than the 25% of minimum imprisonment of that
particular sentence. On the other hand, the maximum length of the long imprisonment should be
according to guidelines given by the Sentencing Reform Act (isb.ussc.gov, 2011).

Alternative Decision
There is another way of deciding the sentences for the criminals if the Commission has felt that
that 25% rule does not relate to the sentence guidelines stated. Then he can substitute the
required sentence within the same guidelines. For example, if the prescribed guidelines of the
imprisonment range are written 18-24 months and commission thinks that it is not consistent

Sentencing Reform Act 1984

with the 25% rule. Then according to the written guidelines he can authorize the incarcerated
sentence of straight probation (Zero months imprisonment). According to the guidelines
prescribed it is important that all the offenders should be allocated the specific category
depending on the seriousness of their crime Moreover there should be specified the range of the
sentence. The sentencing rule should not violate the 25% rule of sentencing meaning the
maximum length of imprisonment should be 25% of the minimum length of imprisonment.
Thus it is established that the rules and guideline made for the sentencing of the defender must
make uniquely, and every prisoner must categorized under a particular category and then their
range of sentencing should decide. For the maximum length of imprisonment, there should 25%
rule followed and if 25% rule does not apply then the non-incarcerated sentence is another option
for the prisoner. In the nutshell if the range of imprisonment is 18-24 month. Then the alternative
guidelines for the sentence say that of straight probation of 0-month imprisonment would not be
allowed because it violets the rule of 25% guidelines. In case of alternative decision, the rule of
25% should not be violated.
By the Criminal Law committee of judicial Conference, the rule of 25 percent has been evaluated
to address the issues related to it. The main purpose to identify that whether this rule applies to
the ultimate range of sentence defined for the offender. Or it uses too for intermediate and
offense level determination period that lead to the final period of offense determination. In the
1995 there was a discretion given the court to decide the level among 1 to 4 by the list of relevant
consideration. This rule of 25% is the permissible mean of achieving the ultimate goals of the
SRA (Howell, 2004).

Sentencing Reform Act 1984

Rationale of Decision making

There have been defined four main categories of the offender by the Sentencing Reform Act in
addition to the constraints on the decision-making process. These groups are separated based on
the seriousness of their crime and then the span of the crime has been identified for them under
this Act.
The first type of the offender has been identified by the Sentencing Commission as the Career
offenders. According to the SRA in this category, those people would be included which
involved in violent crimes and drug trafficking. So the Commission has set some guideline for
such offenders under the law these people would be subject to face the maximum imprisonment.
There was also an amendment in the sentence of these offenders by the commission that they
directed through the Department of Justice initiated legal challenges.
There is another category of offenders with substantial imprisonment. This group includes the
further five categories of the offender that involved in the crimes of a serious nature. (1)
Offenders who have a history of conducting the serious offenses. (2) That offender who earn
their livelihood by performing the attacks. (3) Managers and supervisors of the organizations
who found in the activity of racketeering. (4) That offender who were on bail release but they
still conducted the violent felony. (5) Drug traffickers. So there are different directives and
sentences compiled for the people who come under such categories, and there is offense level of
13 is kept for those who were found involved in criminal activities for the livelihood.
Another category of the offenders is those who participated in those crimes which cause body
injuries to the victims so according to the commission there are directive to judges to suggest
general appropriate imprisonment or sentence for such criminals. This directive form the

Sentencing Reform Act 1984

Commission has issued under their activities of making a choice regarding the offense level and
particular offense characteristics.
There is another category of offenders in which the offender is the new in crime and has
committed his first crime. Then under their spectrum of selecting the appropriate sentence for the
criminal other than imprisonment has included that such criminal should not be given severe
sentences but more emphasis would be on the rehabilitation of such defendants. Tough this step
of the Sentencing Commission has opened a new debate but this move was also appreciated. The
primary purpose of the sentencing reform act is not the put maximum people in the jail but to
give them justice (Fallen, 1987).

Final Decision
On the basis of the decision of Sentencing Commission regarding the sentences of the offender.
There was a statement of Supreme Court that the specific and detailed constitutional
requirements met after the delegation of authority to Sentencing Commission by Congress.
Sentencing Reform Act is quite simple in it composition sis self-explanatory of the goals that
were achieved by the sentencing reform act but also the purpose of the Act is very clear. The
decision of commission also gives a clear picture of tools that would be used to implement this
Act. The courts have also noticed the guidance that were provided by the Sentencing
Commission and its legislative history and concluded that there was significant direction was
given to the decision making process.
It was very hectic task for the judges to define the penalties and sentences for the criminals that
categorized in limitless categories. That is why the delegation of authority to identify certain
groups of criminals, and their sentences was an appropriate move.

Sentencing Reform Act 1984

Minimal standards set for do the Congress, and there are also limited powers to the courts for
making their decision and imposing sentence on the criminals on which they were unanimous
previously. Tough this was not a complete departure from the previous practices there were some
discretion till with the courts. When the congressional policy is to be accomplished then there is
no need for adaptability to changing conditions by the Congress at the highest degree possible
nor even according to a specific formula (Mihm, 1997).

Outcomes of Decision
To determine what would be the policy to solve the problem then sentencing is considered as the
expression of the public policy while Congress considered as the barometer to address the many
issues of the nation. According to the Sentences Reform Act there was seen a shift from the
sentencing to rehabilitation, retribution and deterrence that describes. The foremost purpose of
the act was to protect the society and move the attention of public to protect the offender and
victim and society overall. Giving the sentence to the offender, sometimes does not resolve the
issue. They need more than punishment because after getting punishment they go outside and
again commit a crime. More emphasis was given to their rehabilitation so that they go in society
and be a better member of the community (Clark, 2004).

Cost of Decision making

This Sentencing Reform Act has been proved to be very economical because in the previous
procedures. There were a lot of categories of offenders and millions of the penalties that were
painful to remember. That is why time taken for decision-making process was very long and
sometimes the judges were not able to define in which category they should include the criminal
what penalties should be applied to them. Moreover, sometimes they used their discretion to give

Sentencing Reform Act 1984

them sentences that create un-justification among various criminals. Who were having same
crime but According to Sentencing Reform Act, there are certain defined categories of the
offender and every criminal who has committed a crime of same nature as the other one would
punished equally. This Act has not only reduced the tie of decision-making but the cost incurred
in the decision-making process has also been reduced to the Sentencing Reform Act. So it can be
said the cost of the decision in by the Sentencing Reform Act is very economical (Ussc.gov,
2015).

Criticism
As like other Acts presented over the period of the time Sentencing Reform Act has also faced a
lot of criticism on it structure. There is no foundation for this comment that raised about the
delegation of authority to Sentencing Commission for making the Act by the Congress.
According to critics, the question arises were Congress the entity to channel the judicial
discretion by structuring the guidelines for sentencing. They say that delegation of authority for
the formulation of law in unconstitutional and the legislature must himself address the nations
issues and amend the laws. There were also eyebrows raised on the issue of separation of power
between legislature and judiciary. According to the critic, this Act would reduce the rights of
offenders and diminish the unquestionable exercise of authority and control of Congress. They
are not criticizing because they think they Congress wanted to fix something unbroken, but they
think that there would be a disparity in sentencing which would be unfair to both offender and
society.
The critics are not criticizing the act because of the wrong method used by Congress to correct
the problem. The judicial discretion in the past was to give the sentences to criminals who were

Sentencing Reform Act 1984

having same nature and intensity of the crime? But they were given different sentences due to the
plethora of many other underline reasons that have to keep in mind deciding the sentence and
this thing has overlooked in this Act.
Indeed, the underlying reason for facing such an enormous amount of criticism is due to the
procedure of making the amendments in the law and correcting the problem. Moreover, Congress
seemed to overlook setting any accountability while formulating and imposing the guidelines for
sentencing. They have insulated themselves by keeping themselves way from the formulation of
guidelines for punishment and have given authority to the third part that could not be reached by
vote (Frase, 2014).

Sentencing Reform Act 1984

References
Clark, R. (2004). Sentencing Reform Lessons: From the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 to the
Feeney Amendment. The Journal Of Criminal Law And Criminology (1973-), 94(4), 1069.
doi:10.2307/3491416
Fallen, D. (1987). sentencing practices under the sentencing reform act. www.ncjrs.gov.
Retrieved
1
May
2015,
from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/118186NCJRS.pdf
Frase, R. (2014). Recurring Policy Issues of Guidelines (and non -Guidelines)
Sentencing. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 26(3), 145-157. doi:10.1525/fsr.2014.26.3.145
Howell, R. (2004). Sentencing Reform Lessons: From the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 to the
Feeney Amendment. The Journal Of Criminal Law And Criminology (1973-), 94(4), 1069.
doi:10.2307/3491416
Howell, R. (2004). Sentencing Reform Lessons: From the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 to the
Feeney Amendment. The Journal Of Criminal Law And Criminology (1973-), 94(4), 1069.
doi:10.2307/3491416
isb.ussc.gov,. (2011). An Overview of the UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION.
Retrieved 1 May 2015, from http://isb.ussc.gov/files/USSC_Overview.pdf
Mihm, M. (1997). The Roles and Responsibilities of the Judiciary in the Implementation of the
Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 10(1), 6-8.
doi:10.2307/20640024
Nussbaum, L. (2005). Sentencing in Washington after Blakely v. Washington. Federal
Sentencing Reporter, 18(1), 23-28. doi:10.1525/fsr.2005.18.1.23
Ussc.gov,. (2015). Simplification Draft Paper | United States Sentencing Commission. Retrieved
1 May 2015, from http://www.ussc.gov/research-and-publications/working-groupreports/simplification/simplification-draft-paper-2