A Comparative Perspective on the Sentencing Chaos in the U.S.
As the result of a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the last several years, the U.S. has entered a period of chaos sentencing in criminal cases. For nearly twenty years, reformers of sentencing had tried to get states to adopt a sentencing guidelines model that helped structure sentencin...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Pizzi, William T. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
The Berkeley Electronic Press ; 2006 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Reproduktion: |
Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Global jurist / Topics - Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001, 6.2006, 1, art2 |
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:6 ; year:2006 ; number:1 ; pages:2 |
| Links: |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
NLEJ219554188 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLEJ219554188 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20210707085701.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 090716s2006 xxu|||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLEJ219554188 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 044 | |c XD-US | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Pizzi, William T. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a A Comparative Perspective on the Sentencing Chaos in the U.S. |
| 264 | 1 | |b The Berkeley Electronic Press |c 2006 | |
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a As the result of a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the last several years, the U.S. has entered a period of chaos sentencing in criminal cases. For nearly twenty years, reformers of sentencing had tried to get states to adopt a sentencing guidelines model that helped structure sentencing decisions and that protected defendants from the sort of arbitrary sentencing power that was possible in many U.S. jurisdictions where judges were given broad sentencing discretion with few limits on their power. The Court's recent decisions, however, have dealt a major blow to sentencing guidelines and the result is uncertainty over issues even as basic as who should sentence - the judge or a jury.This Article explains how sentencing works in the U.S. and then analyses the recent Supreme Court decisions that have had the rather disturbing consequence of favoring those jurisdictions that leave sentencing within the broad discretion of the trial judge with no significant limits on that power.In the last section of the Article, the author shows that the intellectual confusion that plagues sentencing in the U.S. stems from the fact that the U.S. has difficulty recognizing that sentencing in the U.S. has traditionally been built on a model that is strongly inquisitorial, vesting tremendous power in the trial judge. This model does not integrate well with a trial system which is at the same time extremely adversarial. The Article concludes that any reform of sentencing that fails to understand the clash of values between a trial system that puts tremendous power in the hands of the parties and a sentencing system that puts similar power in the hands of a single judge is likely to be ineffective and counterproductive. | ||
| 533 | |f Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a sentencing | |
| 650 | 4 | |a jury trials | |
| 650 | 4 | |a sentencing guidelines | |
| 650 | 4 | |a sentencing reform | |
| 650 | 4 | |a criminal procedure | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Global jurist / Topics |d Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 |g 6.2006, 1, art2 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)NLEJ219537240 |w (DE-600)2115504-5 |x 1535-167X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:6 |g year:2006 |g number:1 |g pages:2 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://www.bepress.com/gj/topics/vol6/iss1/art2 |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a ZDB-1-BEP | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NL_ARTICLE | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 6 |j 2006 |e 1 |h 2 |y 6.2006, 1, art2 | ||
| author_variant |
w t p wt wtp |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:1535167X:2006----::cmaaieesetvoteetni |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2006 |
| publishDate |
2006 |
| allfields |
(DE-627)NLEJ219554188 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng XD-US Pizzi, William T. verfasserin aut A Comparative Perspective on the Sentencing Chaos in the U.S. The Berkeley Electronic Press 2006 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier As the result of a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the last several years, the U.S. has entered a period of chaos sentencing in criminal cases. For nearly twenty years, reformers of sentencing had tried to get states to adopt a sentencing guidelines model that helped structure sentencing decisions and that protected defendants from the sort of arbitrary sentencing power that was possible in many U.S. jurisdictions where judges were given broad sentencing discretion with few limits on their power. The Court's recent decisions, however, have dealt a major blow to sentencing guidelines and the result is uncertainty over issues even as basic as who should sentence - the judge or a jury.This Article explains how sentencing works in the U.S. and then analyses the recent Supreme Court decisions that have had the rather disturbing consequence of favoring those jurisdictions that leave sentencing within the broad discretion of the trial judge with no significant limits on that power.In the last section of the Article, the author shows that the intellectual confusion that plagues sentencing in the U.S. stems from the fact that the U.S. has difficulty recognizing that sentencing in the U.S. has traditionally been built on a model that is strongly inquisitorial, vesting tremendous power in the trial judge. This model does not integrate well with a trial system which is at the same time extremely adversarial. The Article concludes that any reform of sentencing that fails to understand the clash of values between a trial system that puts tremendous power in the hands of the parties and a sentencing system that puts similar power in the hands of a single judge is likely to be ineffective and counterproductive. Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals sentencing jury trials sentencing guidelines sentencing reform criminal procedure In Global jurist / Topics Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 6.2006, 1, art2 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ219537240 (DE-600)2115504-5 1535-167X nnns volume:6 year:2006 number:1 pages:2 http://www.bepress.com/gj/topics/vol6/iss1/art2 GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 6 2006 1 2 6.2006, 1, art2 |
| spelling |
(DE-627)NLEJ219554188 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng XD-US Pizzi, William T. verfasserin aut A Comparative Perspective on the Sentencing Chaos in the U.S. The Berkeley Electronic Press 2006 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier As the result of a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the last several years, the U.S. has entered a period of chaos sentencing in criminal cases. For nearly twenty years, reformers of sentencing had tried to get states to adopt a sentencing guidelines model that helped structure sentencing decisions and that protected defendants from the sort of arbitrary sentencing power that was possible in many U.S. jurisdictions where judges were given broad sentencing discretion with few limits on their power. The Court's recent decisions, however, have dealt a major blow to sentencing guidelines and the result is uncertainty over issues even as basic as who should sentence - the judge or a jury.This Article explains how sentencing works in the U.S. and then analyses the recent Supreme Court decisions that have had the rather disturbing consequence of favoring those jurisdictions that leave sentencing within the broad discretion of the trial judge with no significant limits on that power.In the last section of the Article, the author shows that the intellectual confusion that plagues sentencing in the U.S. stems from the fact that the U.S. has difficulty recognizing that sentencing in the U.S. has traditionally been built on a model that is strongly inquisitorial, vesting tremendous power in the trial judge. This model does not integrate well with a trial system which is at the same time extremely adversarial. The Article concludes that any reform of sentencing that fails to understand the clash of values between a trial system that puts tremendous power in the hands of the parties and a sentencing system that puts similar power in the hands of a single judge is likely to be ineffective and counterproductive. Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals sentencing jury trials sentencing guidelines sentencing reform criminal procedure In Global jurist / Topics Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 6.2006, 1, art2 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ219537240 (DE-600)2115504-5 1535-167X nnns volume:6 year:2006 number:1 pages:2 http://www.bepress.com/gj/topics/vol6/iss1/art2 GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 6 2006 1 2 6.2006, 1, art2 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
(DE-627)NLEJ219554188 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng XD-US Pizzi, William T. verfasserin aut A Comparative Perspective on the Sentencing Chaos in the U.S. The Berkeley Electronic Press 2006 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier As the result of a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the last several years, the U.S. has entered a period of chaos sentencing in criminal cases. For nearly twenty years, reformers of sentencing had tried to get states to adopt a sentencing guidelines model that helped structure sentencing decisions and that protected defendants from the sort of arbitrary sentencing power that was possible in many U.S. jurisdictions where judges were given broad sentencing discretion with few limits on their power. The Court's recent decisions, however, have dealt a major blow to sentencing guidelines and the result is uncertainty over issues even as basic as who should sentence - the judge or a jury.This Article explains how sentencing works in the U.S. and then analyses the recent Supreme Court decisions that have had the rather disturbing consequence of favoring those jurisdictions that leave sentencing within the broad discretion of the trial judge with no significant limits on that power.In the last section of the Article, the author shows that the intellectual confusion that plagues sentencing in the U.S. stems from the fact that the U.S. has difficulty recognizing that sentencing in the U.S. has traditionally been built on a model that is strongly inquisitorial, vesting tremendous power in the trial judge. This model does not integrate well with a trial system which is at the same time extremely adversarial. The Article concludes that any reform of sentencing that fails to understand the clash of values between a trial system that puts tremendous power in the hands of the parties and a sentencing system that puts similar power in the hands of a single judge is likely to be ineffective and counterproductive. Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals sentencing jury trials sentencing guidelines sentencing reform criminal procedure In Global jurist / Topics Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 6.2006, 1, art2 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ219537240 (DE-600)2115504-5 1535-167X nnns volume:6 year:2006 number:1 pages:2 http://www.bepress.com/gj/topics/vol6/iss1/art2 GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 6 2006 1 2 6.2006, 1, art2 |
| allfieldsGer |
(DE-627)NLEJ219554188 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng XD-US Pizzi, William T. verfasserin aut A Comparative Perspective on the Sentencing Chaos in the U.S. The Berkeley Electronic Press 2006 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier As the result of a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the last several years, the U.S. has entered a period of chaos sentencing in criminal cases. For nearly twenty years, reformers of sentencing had tried to get states to adopt a sentencing guidelines model that helped structure sentencing decisions and that protected defendants from the sort of arbitrary sentencing power that was possible in many U.S. jurisdictions where judges were given broad sentencing discretion with few limits on their power. The Court's recent decisions, however, have dealt a major blow to sentencing guidelines and the result is uncertainty over issues even as basic as who should sentence - the judge or a jury.This Article explains how sentencing works in the U.S. and then analyses the recent Supreme Court decisions that have had the rather disturbing consequence of favoring those jurisdictions that leave sentencing within the broad discretion of the trial judge with no significant limits on that power.In the last section of the Article, the author shows that the intellectual confusion that plagues sentencing in the U.S. stems from the fact that the U.S. has difficulty recognizing that sentencing in the U.S. has traditionally been built on a model that is strongly inquisitorial, vesting tremendous power in the trial judge. This model does not integrate well with a trial system which is at the same time extremely adversarial. The Article concludes that any reform of sentencing that fails to understand the clash of values between a trial system that puts tremendous power in the hands of the parties and a sentencing system that puts similar power in the hands of a single judge is likely to be ineffective and counterproductive. Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals sentencing jury trials sentencing guidelines sentencing reform criminal procedure In Global jurist / Topics Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 6.2006, 1, art2 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ219537240 (DE-600)2115504-5 1535-167X nnns volume:6 year:2006 number:1 pages:2 http://www.bepress.com/gj/topics/vol6/iss1/art2 GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 6 2006 1 2 6.2006, 1, art2 |
| allfieldsSound |
(DE-627)NLEJ219554188 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng XD-US Pizzi, William T. verfasserin aut A Comparative Perspective on the Sentencing Chaos in the U.S. The Berkeley Electronic Press 2006 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier As the result of a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the last several years, the U.S. has entered a period of chaos sentencing in criminal cases. For nearly twenty years, reformers of sentencing had tried to get states to adopt a sentencing guidelines model that helped structure sentencing decisions and that protected defendants from the sort of arbitrary sentencing power that was possible in many U.S. jurisdictions where judges were given broad sentencing discretion with few limits on their power. The Court's recent decisions, however, have dealt a major blow to sentencing guidelines and the result is uncertainty over issues even as basic as who should sentence - the judge or a jury.This Article explains how sentencing works in the U.S. and then analyses the recent Supreme Court decisions that have had the rather disturbing consequence of favoring those jurisdictions that leave sentencing within the broad discretion of the trial judge with no significant limits on that power.In the last section of the Article, the author shows that the intellectual confusion that plagues sentencing in the U.S. stems from the fact that the U.S. has difficulty recognizing that sentencing in the U.S. has traditionally been built on a model that is strongly inquisitorial, vesting tremendous power in the trial judge. This model does not integrate well with a trial system which is at the same time extremely adversarial. The Article concludes that any reform of sentencing that fails to understand the clash of values between a trial system that puts tremendous power in the hands of the parties and a sentencing system that puts similar power in the hands of a single judge is likely to be ineffective and counterproductive. Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals sentencing jury trials sentencing guidelines sentencing reform criminal procedure In Global jurist / Topics Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001 6.2006, 1, art2 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ219537240 (DE-600)2115504-5 1535-167X nnns volume:6 year:2006 number:1 pages:2 http://www.bepress.com/gj/topics/vol6/iss1/art2 GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 6 2006 1 2 6.2006, 1, art2 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In Global jurist / Topics 6.2006, 1, art2 volume:6 year:2006 number:1 pages:2 |
| sourceStr |
In Global jurist / Topics 6.2006, 1, art2 volume:6 year:2006 number:1 pages:2 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
sentencing jury trials sentencing guidelines sentencing reform criminal procedure |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Global jurist / Topics |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Pizzi, William T. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2006-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
NLEJ219537240 |
| id |
NLEJ219554188 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ219554188</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20210707085701.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">090716s2006 xxu|||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ219554188</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="044" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="c">XD-US</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pizzi, William T.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">A Comparative Perspective on the Sentencing Chaos in the U.S.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="b">The Berkeley Electronic Press</subfield><subfield code="c">2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">As the result of a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the last several years, the U.S. has entered a period of chaos sentencing in criminal cases. For nearly twenty years, reformers of sentencing had tried to get states to adopt a sentencing guidelines model that helped structure sentencing decisions and that protected defendants from the sort of arbitrary sentencing power that was possible in many U.S. jurisdictions where judges were given broad sentencing discretion with few limits on their power. The Court's recent decisions, however, have dealt a major blow to sentencing guidelines and the result is uncertainty over issues even as basic as who should sentence - the judge or a jury.This Article explains how sentencing works in the U.S. and then analyses the recent Supreme Court decisions that have had the rather disturbing consequence of favoring those jurisdictions that leave sentencing within the broad discretion of the trial judge with no significant limits on that power.In the last section of the Article, the author shows that the intellectual confusion that plagues sentencing in the U.S. stems from the fact that the U.S. has difficulty recognizing that sentencing in the U.S. has traditionally been built on a model that is strongly inquisitorial, vesting tremendous power in the trial judge. This model does not integrate well with a trial system which is at the same time extremely adversarial. The Article concludes that any reform of sentencing that fails to understand the clash of values between a trial system that puts tremendous power in the hands of the parties and a sentencing system that puts similar power in the hands of a single judge is likely to be ineffective and counterproductive.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="f">Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">sentencing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">jury trials</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">sentencing guidelines</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">sentencing reform</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">criminal procedure</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Global jurist / Topics</subfield><subfield code="d">Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">6.2006, 1, art2</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ219537240</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2115504-5</subfield><subfield code="x">1535-167X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:6</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2006</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:2</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.bepress.com/gj/topics/vol6/iss1/art2</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-BEP</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">6</subfield><subfield code="j">2006</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">2</subfield><subfield code="y">6.2006, 1, art2</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| series2 |
Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals |
| author |
Pizzi, William T. |
| spellingShingle |
Pizzi, William T. misc sentencing misc jury trials misc sentencing guidelines misc sentencing reform misc criminal procedure A Comparative Perspective on the Sentencing Chaos in the U.S. |
| authorStr |
Pizzi, William T. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)NLEJ219537240 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
NL |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1535-167X |
| topic_title |
A Comparative Perspective on the Sentencing Chaos in the U.S. sentencing jury trials sentencing guidelines sentencing reform criminal procedure |
| publisher |
The Berkeley Electronic Press |
| publisherStr |
The Berkeley Electronic Press |
| topic |
misc sentencing misc jury trials misc sentencing guidelines misc sentencing reform misc criminal procedure |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc sentencing misc jury trials misc sentencing guidelines misc sentencing reform misc criminal procedure |
| topic_browse |
misc sentencing misc jury trials misc sentencing guidelines misc sentencing reform misc criminal procedure |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Global jurist / Topics |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
NLEJ219537240 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Global jurist / Topics |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)NLEJ219537240 (DE-600)2115504-5 |
| title |
A Comparative Perspective on the Sentencing Chaos in the U.S. |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)NLEJ219554188 |
| title_full |
A Comparative Perspective on the Sentencing Chaos in the U.S. |
| author_sort |
Pizzi, William T. |
| journal |
Global jurist / Topics |
| journalStr |
Global jurist / Topics |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2006 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
2 |
| author_browse |
Pizzi, William T. |
| container_volume |
6 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| countryofpublication_str_mv |
XD-US |
| author-letter |
Pizzi, William T. |
| title_sort |
a comparative perspective on the sentencing chaos in the u.s. |
| title_auth |
A Comparative Perspective on the Sentencing Chaos in the U.S. |
| abstract |
As the result of a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the last several years, the U.S. has entered a period of chaos sentencing in criminal cases. For nearly twenty years, reformers of sentencing had tried to get states to adopt a sentencing guidelines model that helped structure sentencing decisions and that protected defendants from the sort of arbitrary sentencing power that was possible in many U.S. jurisdictions where judges were given broad sentencing discretion with few limits on their power. The Court's recent decisions, however, have dealt a major blow to sentencing guidelines and the result is uncertainty over issues even as basic as who should sentence - the judge or a jury.This Article explains how sentencing works in the U.S. and then analyses the recent Supreme Court decisions that have had the rather disturbing consequence of favoring those jurisdictions that leave sentencing within the broad discretion of the trial judge with no significant limits on that power.In the last section of the Article, the author shows that the intellectual confusion that plagues sentencing in the U.S. stems from the fact that the U.S. has difficulty recognizing that sentencing in the U.S. has traditionally been built on a model that is strongly inquisitorial, vesting tremendous power in the trial judge. This model does not integrate well with a trial system which is at the same time extremely adversarial. The Article concludes that any reform of sentencing that fails to understand the clash of values between a trial system that puts tremendous power in the hands of the parties and a sentencing system that puts similar power in the hands of a single judge is likely to be ineffective and counterproductive. |
| abstractGer |
As the result of a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the last several years, the U.S. has entered a period of chaos sentencing in criminal cases. For nearly twenty years, reformers of sentencing had tried to get states to adopt a sentencing guidelines model that helped structure sentencing decisions and that protected defendants from the sort of arbitrary sentencing power that was possible in many U.S. jurisdictions where judges were given broad sentencing discretion with few limits on their power. The Court's recent decisions, however, have dealt a major blow to sentencing guidelines and the result is uncertainty over issues even as basic as who should sentence - the judge or a jury.This Article explains how sentencing works in the U.S. and then analyses the recent Supreme Court decisions that have had the rather disturbing consequence of favoring those jurisdictions that leave sentencing within the broad discretion of the trial judge with no significant limits on that power.In the last section of the Article, the author shows that the intellectual confusion that plagues sentencing in the U.S. stems from the fact that the U.S. has difficulty recognizing that sentencing in the U.S. has traditionally been built on a model that is strongly inquisitorial, vesting tremendous power in the trial judge. This model does not integrate well with a trial system which is at the same time extremely adversarial. The Article concludes that any reform of sentencing that fails to understand the clash of values between a trial system that puts tremendous power in the hands of the parties and a sentencing system that puts similar power in the hands of a single judge is likely to be ineffective and counterproductive. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
As the result of a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the last several years, the U.S. has entered a period of chaos sentencing in criminal cases. For nearly twenty years, reformers of sentencing had tried to get states to adopt a sentencing guidelines model that helped structure sentencing decisions and that protected defendants from the sort of arbitrary sentencing power that was possible in many U.S. jurisdictions where judges were given broad sentencing discretion with few limits on their power. The Court's recent decisions, however, have dealt a major blow to sentencing guidelines and the result is uncertainty over issues even as basic as who should sentence - the judge or a jury.This Article explains how sentencing works in the U.S. and then analyses the recent Supreme Court decisions that have had the rather disturbing consequence of favoring those jurisdictions that leave sentencing within the broad discretion of the trial judge with no significant limits on that power.In the last section of the Article, the author shows that the intellectual confusion that plagues sentencing in the U.S. stems from the fact that the U.S. has difficulty recognizing that sentencing in the U.S. has traditionally been built on a model that is strongly inquisitorial, vesting tremendous power in the trial judge. This model does not integrate well with a trial system which is at the same time extremely adversarial. The Article concludes that any reform of sentencing that fails to understand the clash of values between a trial system that puts tremendous power in the hands of the parties and a sentencing system that puts similar power in the hands of a single judge is likely to be ineffective and counterproductive. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-BEP GBV_NL_ARTICLE |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
A Comparative Perspective on the Sentencing Chaos in the U.S. |
| url |
http://www.bepress.com/gj/topics/vol6/iss1/art2 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| ppnlink |
NLEJ219537240 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T05:28:51.564Z |
| _version_ |
1803806291070550016 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ219554188</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20210707085701.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">090716s2006 xxu|||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ219554188</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="044" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="c">XD-US</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pizzi, William T.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">A Comparative Perspective on the Sentencing Chaos in the U.S.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="b">The Berkeley Electronic Press</subfield><subfield code="c">2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">As the result of a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the last several years, the U.S. has entered a period of chaos sentencing in criminal cases. For nearly twenty years, reformers of sentencing had tried to get states to adopt a sentencing guidelines model that helped structure sentencing decisions and that protected defendants from the sort of arbitrary sentencing power that was possible in many U.S. jurisdictions where judges were given broad sentencing discretion with few limits on their power. The Court's recent decisions, however, have dealt a major blow to sentencing guidelines and the result is uncertainty over issues even as basic as who should sentence - the judge or a jury.This Article explains how sentencing works in the U.S. and then analyses the recent Supreme Court decisions that have had the rather disturbing consequence of favoring those jurisdictions that leave sentencing within the broad discretion of the trial judge with no significant limits on that power.In the last section of the Article, the author shows that the intellectual confusion that plagues sentencing in the U.S. stems from the fact that the U.S. has difficulty recognizing that sentencing in the U.S. has traditionally been built on a model that is strongly inquisitorial, vesting tremendous power in the trial judge. This model does not integrate well with a trial system which is at the same time extremely adversarial. The Article concludes that any reform of sentencing that fails to understand the clash of values between a trial system that puts tremendous power in the hands of the parties and a sentencing system that puts similar power in the hands of a single judge is likely to be ineffective and counterproductive.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="f">Berkeley Electronic Press Academic Journals</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">sentencing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">jury trials</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">sentencing guidelines</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">sentencing reform</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">criminal procedure</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Global jurist / Topics</subfield><subfield code="d">Berkeley, Calif. : Bepress, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">6.2006, 1, art2</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ219537240</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2115504-5</subfield><subfield code="x">1535-167X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:6</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2006</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:2</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.bepress.com/gj/topics/vol6/iss1/art2</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-BEP</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">6</subfield><subfield code="j">2006</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">2</subfield><subfield code="y">6.2006, 1, art2</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3989506 |