Unfair Sentencing

Introduction

Unfair Sentencing or Sentencing Disparity is defined as "a form of unequal treatment that is of often of unexplained cause and is at least incongruous, unfair and disadvantaging in consequence". It is important to distinguish disparity from differences that arise due to legitimate use of discretion in the application of the law and those difference that arise due to discrimination or other, unexplained, causes unrelated to the issues found in the specific criminal case.

This is a major problem because two judges could be faced with a similar case and one could give an extremely unfair and unnecessary verdict, whereas another would give a much lesser sentence.

Sentencing guideline systems in Iowa for determining criminal sentences have dramatically changed the way punishment is meted out in U.S. courtrooms. Twenty-two states and the federal government use sentencing guidelines, which require a judge to calculate a criminal sentence using a mathematical formula. Points are assigned based on the defendant's offences, prior criminal record, and other factors. A total is calculated, and the sentence is computed. A judge has very little room to depart from the sentence mandated by the guidelines.

There has been controversy over the fairness and the legitimacy of using sentencing guidelines in Iowa, with the most criticism directed at the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The criticism comes mostly from defence attorneys and judges, who argue that the guidelines give prosecutors too much power in the criminal justice system and give too little discretion to judges to shape a sentence to fit the individual defendant. Defenders of sentencing guidelines contend that they are a vast improvement over the way sentencing has traditionally been done, eliminating "judge shopping" and the Arbitrary and disparate sentencing practices that come with unbridled judicial discretion.

Thesis Statement

The state of Iowa should have uniform sentencing guidelines because of fairness and monetary reasons.

Sentencing Guidelines

Congress authorized the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in 1984. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Commission, a seven-member panel appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, issued the first set of guidelines in 1987. The guidelines have been constantly changed, mostly by the commission, but also by congressional legislation. In addition, Congress has exercised its Veto power over amendments proposed by the commission. By 1996 the federal guidelines had grown to an 850-page manual, containing complex formulas for computing different types of sentences.

Proponents of federal sentencing guidelines believe that they reduce sentencing disparity and guarantee harsher punishment for federal felons, many of whom are convicted for selling illegal narcotics. Before the guidelines were created, the proponents argue, defendants tried to avoid judges who handed out tough sentences and to find one who would be lenient. Thus, in one court a bank robber would get an eighteen-year sentence, while in another a robber convicted of the same crime would receive only five years in prison. In addition, there was evidence to suggest that minorities received the harshest treatment. Sentencing guidelines have, therefore, reduced the arbitrary dispensation of punishment.

Proponents also contend that because the guidelines provide predictable sentences, they serve as a ...