PSY-205-H7711 Forensic Psychology 24EW4 DR

Course Menu Tools mySNHU Shapiro Library Academic Support More

Module Overview
 Listen
 
MODULE 5
Sentencing Evaluations
A person convicted of a crime must be sentenced. Because many factors are at play in sentencing a
criminal, two people who commit the same crime might not receive the same sentence. Some examples
of factors that can have an effect on sentencing include:

What traits does the person have?

Was there any external cause that contributed to the crime?
How stable was the individual at the times of the act?
Were drugs and alcohol involved?

Statistics indicate that when sentences are handed down, African American males tend to get the
harshest sentences, while females (regardless of race or religion) are treated more leniently. Females
are less likely to be sentenced to prison, and when they are, their sentences are shorter.

Judges do use sentencing guidelines, but there is generally a good deal of leeway when determining
what sentence to impose. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 required judges to consult these
guidelines for mandatory (determinate) sentencing. The guidelines take into account the crime’s
severity and the convicted person’s criminal history.

More than half of states in the U.S. now have “three-strikes” laws requiring extreme sentencing for
persons who are convicted of a third felony. These laws, unfortunately, result in long sentences for
older individuals who are unlikely to offend much longer.

Today, the United States has more than five times the number of prisoners (756 for every 100,000
citizens) than the country with the next highest prisoner rate, Great Britain (152 for every 100,000
citizens). In the United States, the number of people imprisoned for drug violations has risen
dramatically, with approximately half of those in federal prison serving sentences for drug-related
charges. A large percentage of those imprisoned also have had family members who have served time,
have used drugs, do not have high school degrees, and make very little money. Black men are
 have used drugs, do not have high school degrees, and make very little money. Black men are
disproportionately represented in the prison population—there are more black men in prison than in
college. Women are disproportionately underrepresented.

New inmates undergo a process of prisonization

prisonization, which refers to learning about the culture and
values of their new environment. This results in some less-serious criminals becoming more
“criminalized” in their thinking. This, of course, runs counter to what we believe prison should do. Prison
life removes criminals from the outside world, takes away their decision power over major issues of
their life, and occurs in a highly oppressive environment where strict routines are followed every day. It
is rarely rehabilitative.

References
Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2012). Forensic and legal psychology: Psychological science applied to law.
New York, NY: Worth.

end of 2022

U.S. prison population was 1,230,100 on December 31, 2022

a 2% increase from 2021 (1,205,100)

people sentenced to more than 1 year accounted for 96%

(1,185,500) of the total U.S. prison population

32% black
31% white both state and federal prisons
23% hispanic
10% multiracial/other
2% American Indian/Alaska native
1% Asian, native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander
[Link]
preliminary-data-release
Chapter 16
corrections: sentencing, imprisonment, and alternatives
4/2/24

prison is the from 1972 on, the prison rate expanded whether
centerpiece of crime rates rose or fell
our system of
punishment the US incarcerates a larger % of its population
than does any other country worldwide

"If crime is going up, former head of National Criminal

then we need to build Justice commission
more prisons; if crime is
going down, it's because
we built more prisons"

prisons have added new features for security:

• electric fences, razor wire
• high walls, gun towers
• video camera monitoring
• no movable furniture in cells
• no detachable objects (toilet handles/soap dishes)
• cells built at angles to prevent communication
after conviction, before punishment → criminal must be sentenced
appropriate punishment depends on seriousness of crimes and
attributes of criminals to explain people's behavior
internal personality, free choice
causes
external powerful situational or environmental forces
causes
 psychologists also look at:
controllability whether or not a behavior appears to have been
under the control of the person

stability whether the cause of a behavior appears to be

temporary (unstable) or permanent (stable)
crimes resulting from internal, controllable, stable causes → evoke
anger, strong punitive response
crimes resulting from external, less controllable, unstable causes →
elicit sympathy, more lenient sentences, and interest in rehabilitation
no criminal record = unstable two people who
mentally deficient = less controllable commit the same
peer pressure = external causes crime will not
necessarily get the
sentencing disparities: same sentence
• biased judicial discretion
• race harsher sentencing:
• gender • Hispanics
• political leanings of judges • blacks
• males
• younger defendants
young Hispanic Young black women usually get
males have males get lighter sentences
highest odds • drug/property crimes
of the longest • violent crimes
incarceration sentences

life sentences for juveniles - more likely if:

• African American
• judge was elected, not appointed
• jurisdiction was politically conservative
sentencing guidelines: created to restrain discretion of judges and
reduce inequity in sentencing, list factors that must be considered
• type of crime
• viciousness of crime •• circumstances of current offense
average sentence given for similar crimes
• prior criminal record
determinate sentencing: requires judges to hand down a sentence
that falls within a prespecified range if defendant found guilty of a
certain crime

passed due to:

Sentencing • concern over sentencing disparity
Reform Act • public perception that judges were too lenient
of 1984 • desire of officials to appear "tough on crime"

created a grid for

judges to refer to:
rows indicate offense
level (severity) and
columns are six levels of
prior criminal history,
body of table organized
into 4 zones based on
offense levels and
criminal history points

Zone A = 0-6 months range of

Zone D = 360 months to life sentences
(midpoint is 57-71 months)
robbery = level 20 offense, can be adjusted:
• upward if aggravating circumstances (victim injured, gun used)
• downward if mitigating circumstances (defendant accepts
responsibility, accomplice was more responsible
judges do not consider: United States v. Booker
• age • family relationships (2005)
• health • drug addiction abandoned "mandatory"
• intelligence • employment stability component of federal
• education sentencing guidelines

sentencing guidelines should be advisory, however it increased

disparity between black and white defendants
three-strikes law: requires that criminals receive a life sentence or
long sentence when convicted of a third felony
seems to make sentences harsher for black
prison is more men who are felons
expensive than
any sentencing SCOTUS decision in 2015 made many states
option except the rewrite three strikes laws
death penalty
decisions made by
other sentencing options: parole boards
probation parole
withholding a prison sentence and releasing inmates before
releasing the criminal, who is then sentence is up to be
strictly supervised by a PO supervised by parole officer
six factors that raise risk of parole denial:
• bad behavior while in prison
• initial sentence perceived too lenient by parole board
• being in prison for a violent crime
• long criminal history
• evidence of mental illness
• input from victims or their families requesting denial
types of imprisonment:
short-term holding cells operated by cities or
jails counties, administered by local authorities (county
sheriffs/city police), many are overcrowded
• hold people with misdemeanors (less than year sentence)
• hold people before and during trial
• hold people between conviction, sentencing, and prison

hold convicted prisoners long-term, from years -

prisons to decades, most are eventually released, some
will never be, and under 1% will be executed
• every state has its own prison system
• range from minimum security → maximum security
• open-security prisons for nonviolent drugs/white collar crime
for people who break federal law - crimes that
federal reach beyond individual states or involve
prisons multistate conspiracies, 47% of federal
prisoners are drug offenders
 super maximum-security, for people deemed
supermax especially serious criminals or inmates transferred
prisons from other prisons for significant behavior problems
• held in small cells
• interactions tightly controlled can be viewed as
• education/rec scarce or entirely absent modern solitary
confinement, which is
Alcatraz 1934 - 1963
psychologically damaging
San Francisco Bay

Pelican Bay Prison, CA -

holds worst, most
incorrigible prisoners
established 5 year
Ashker v Brown (2014) - lawsuit of 500 limit on solitary
Pelican Bay inmates in solitary for 10+ years
penal institution: place of punishment
penitentiary: religious, where you can repent and atone for sins
correctional institution: where criminal behavior is improved/corrected
goals of imprisonment:

1. Incapacitation incapacitation through containment, sparing

[Link] society from what criminals might do if they
[Link] were free, requires only that they are held
[Link] securely and cannot escape

deterrence is the hope that prison is so miserable that the criminal

no longer wants to offend once they are released - this is specific
deterrence; general deterrence hopes regular people don't want to
offend because they are scared of prison

retribution is less practical, more emotional, provides moral solidarity

among law abiding citizens and educates potential criminals about
union behaviors are strongly condemned, but there is no formula
for it and it is not always ethical - backwards/focuses on the crime

rehabilitation tries to improve a criminal's behavior before they go

back into society, this is why prisons were developed, but it directly
conflicts with the other goals - miserable prisons likely to make
people angry/aggressive without giving them prosocial skills
 evolution of US prisons:
justice was not equal - if
1700s you were rich you could pay
instead of being punished

crimes included theft, assault, rape, murder but also moral

transgressions like witchcraft, adultery, idolatry, and blasphemy
public shaming - usual punishment in colonial times for guilty people
• stocks • whipped
• pillory • chained/tied to post
colonies invented gradual system of
punishments for repeat offenders
1st conviction - fine or whipping
2nd conviction - fine tripled, sit on gallows with a noose around
neck, then tied to whipping post for 30 lashes
3rd conviction - death by hanging first three-strikes law?
after revolutionary war, Americans wanted a system of punishment
distinct from England's, something different than the "corrupt,
barbarous, unjust" punishments there
death penalty restricted → began to rely on incarceration
1790 → 1800 - 8 states built prisons
 people began to feel that prisons created as
1800s many problems as they solved
there were escapes, small disturbances, and riots

1820 - most officials believed that prison created crime instead of

stopping it, led to analysis of causes and consequences of crime
earliest beliefs were religious - if people were born sinful then
some crime was inevitable
American society became more secular, new theory began in
early 19th century - societal disorganization was to blame
trends that encouraged criminality:
• decline of influence of church
• increased mobility of citizens leading to communities where no one
cared about each other
• schools failing to discipline children, teach them right and wrong
• uninvolved fathers working too much
• families allowing children to leave home too young
rehabilitation became new ideal v incarceration - if society was
failing people, prisons would have to fix it
1820s - prisons established in New York and Pennsylvania with
rehabilitation as the goal
PA - prisoners served basically entire sentence remaining in cells
NY - more relaxed, allowed to work in silent groups
1842 - Charles Dickens toured Philadelphia prison, said very few men
are capable of enduring the isolation without psychological effects
PA prison model was problematic -
• impractical • mental breakdowns
• expensive • self-mutilations
• extreme isolation drove many insane • suicides

overcrowding was a major problem - 1/3 of all prisoners were

housed two to a cell by 1866, making silence/isolation impossible
to remain in control, prison official used brutal, abusive forms of
discipline - bucking, ball and chain, solitary confinement in cell,
concrete box, or cage with little food and water
bigotry was also a problem - inmates were disproportionately new
immigrants (especially Irish) and people felt they were inferior
1900s - prisons focused mainly on security and keeping order
prisons influenced by medical and social science -
1900s some criminals seen as having psych disorders
that could be corrected with therapy

medical model
• bolstered commitment to indeterminate sentencing (instead of
sentencing, prisoners could just be released when rehabilitated)
• officials had to develop classification schemes to differentiate
between inmates on the basis of their problems - classification
would then dictate therapeutic approach
• well-behaved prisoners didn't get treatment/retraining but the ill-
behaved ones could be treated more harshly

late 1960s - concern about brutality and ineffectiveness of prisons

public dissatisfaction + prison riots = antiprison movement
California,
Pennsylvania, emphasized rehabilitation,
Kansas, New York reintegration into community, and
alternatives to incarceration
1971 - analysis of 231 prison rehabilitation programs concluded that
they did not work
victims rights movements shifted focus away from offenders,
made people less interested in reforming criminals, instead wanted
to make them pay
1980s - educational/vocational/sports/rec programs cut back or
eliminated
1980s - 1990s - state/national politicians wanted to be "tough on
crime"
victim-offender mediation (restorative justice): face to face
meetings between victims and offenders - victims say they
can forgive e the perpetrator, and offenders say they feel
more responsibility for their actions
prisoner rights and the courts:
until middle of 20th century, federal/state courts were hands-off
with prisons, for a few reasons:
• it was felt judges lacked expertise in prison admin
• the courts would undermine prison discipline
• complaints from prisoners involved privileges, not rights
• society favored or at least accepted harshness of prisons
1960s/1970s - expansion of civil liberties for society's least powerful
groups, minorities, women, children, and inmates
Cooper v. Pate (1964) - Muslim inmates could get copy of Koran, eat
meals without pork, and hold religious meetings
Procunier v. Martinez (1974) - inmates can receive mail and use law
students/paralegals to work on their cases
14-26% of inmates
Rhodes v. Chapman (1981) - stopped have a serious
commitment to fixing inhumane conditions mental illness
Wilson v. Seiter (1991) - to be judged cruel and unusual, conditions would
have to be inhumane, but you would also have to show the officials
were deliberately indifferent to them
Farmer v. Brennan (1994) - extended cruel and unusual standard to
say that inmates had to prove "subjective recklessness" by officials
Prison Rape Elimination Act (2003) - Congress established a commission
to conduct research and develop strategy for preventing prison rape
McGuckin v. Smith (1992) - prisons have to provide treatment for
serious mental illness if it results in significant injury and not just
misery from being in jail
Washington v. Harper (1990) - prisoners cannot be forced to take
medication unless medically warranted or it will stop the person from
hurting himself or others
Brown v. Plata (2011) - ordered release of more than 46,000 prisoners
due to overcrowding/violation of rights to medical and psych help
since 1980s, US rate of total prison population is
incarceration averages 5x function of two numbers:
higher than any other
industrialized democracy # of people sent to prison
length of sentence
highest rates of incarceration: could be reduced by
• Oklahoma • Georgia • using probation or other
• Louisiana • Alabama alternatives to sentencing
• Mississippi • decreasing length of sentences
• reducing recidivism
recidivism: commission of new crimes after release from prison
contributors to the rise in imprisonment:
• longer sentences • reduction in use of parole
• mandatory sentencing • increased imprisonment of juveniles
• three-strikes laws
race:
prisoners with incarcerated family - 40% black men
prisoners who were regular drug users - 62% incarcerated at rate
prisoners who completed high school - 33% 6x higher than white
prisoners who are married - 18% men, ages 20-34 have
prisoners who earned less than $20K - 50%t highest incarceration
state prisoners: federal prisoners: rate of any race or
violent - 55% Violent - 8% gender group
drug - 15% drug - 47%
property - 18% property - 6% 93% of both state
public order - 12% public order - 39% and federal
other - 0.6% other - 0.4% inmates are male
 single largest reason for inmates in for violent crimes:
gender disparity in prison is female - 38%
male propensity for aggression male - 57%
and violent behavior
women more likely to be in women more likely to attempt
minimum security, dorm-style → self- mutilation and suicide
facilities, have less violent more likely than men to be
behavior in prison given psychoactive drugs
women in prison: inmates with minor children:
white (49%) female- 59%
black (28%) male - 48%

prison culture:
prison is a distinct subculture with its own rules/norms/power
hierarchy/rewards/punishments
prisonization - assimilation of new inmates into the values, norms,
and language of the prison, combines with importation of violent
street culture to make prison especially dangerous
rewards better work assignments, camaraderie, protection

punishments solitary/locked in cell, intimidation, violence

at times, someone's personality characteristics Stanford Prison

have less influence on behavior than the → Experiment
characteristics of the situation they are in (1971)
 harshness of prison life: boredom is the governing
prison vs. real life: reality of life in prison
• prisoners are banished from the outside world and the people/
surroundings they care about
• prisoners have no decision-making power over their lives
• physical environment is stark and oppressive
• extreme lack of privacy, especially for double-celled inmates
• threat or reality of violence from prisoners/groups/guards
• enforced idleness and relentless, deadening routine

major problem prison is "a purely authoritarian state that

is monotony tolerates no independence und individuality; it
is dehumanizing, for it forces you to adapt by
becoming more self contained and insulated "

in prison, rules are enforced through violence core feature

chronic state of fear and vigilance takes is violence,
heavy psychological toll or threat of
convict code - informal system of rules and
norms for inmates, expects them to gain and
maintain respect by being hypermasculine and
tough, indicates that inmates who "snitch" on
usually most
other inmates should be beaten, stabbed, or killed
effective
same-sex rape used to demean and way to
dominate other inmates, most have to achieve goals
choose whether to fight or submit sexually in prison
a lot of criminal behavior in prison is facilitated by gangs
one reason is because there are a lot more prisoners than guards
- immediate power in a ph us on belongs to the prisoners
legal rulings limiting ability to physically punish prisoners mean that
there is an increase in the power of prison gangs
about half of all
prison violence is
the result of if I go forward,
gang activity follow me
if I hesitate,
push me
if they kill me,
avenge me
if I am a
traitor, kill me
nuestra familia gang

does prison work?

prison is a public program paid for by taxpayers, so there needs
to be a cost-benefit analysis - whether they are worth the cost
or if something cheaper would be better
prison is most expensive response to crime other than death penalty
- costs $34k-$60K per prisoner, per year
some estimates say that one murder costs society more than 51
million in lost wages, productivity, and increased public services to
victims families
medical care for inmates is costly especially since prison does not
promote physical or mental health
prisoners with long sentences suffer from accelerated aging -
they age about 15 years faster than people on outside
dementia among prisoners expected to increase more than 60%
by 2030 when 1/3 of prison population will be over 55
HIV/AIDS is about 12x higher for prisoners
prisons spawn new strains of virulent disease - tuberculosis in NY,
1990s, diseases spread through sex, fighting, drug use, tattoos
new recruits - people who step up to fill the vacancy when a
criminal is taken Off the streets
effectiveness measured against goals: criminogenic effect
• incapacitation increasing likelihood
• retribution of subsequent
• rehabilitation criminal behavior
prison increases criminality:
• fosters antisocial behavior just over 1/2 of
• connects inmates to criminal social people released are
networks back within 3 years
• makes A difficult to get legal job
because of record
67% overall will be rearrested and sent back to prison
 what makes rehabilitation programs effective:
• correcting educational and job skill deficits
• changing attitudes and thinking patterns that promote criminal
behavior
• improving self-awareness and self-esteem
• enhancing interpersonal relationship skills
• reducing drug abuse
• reducing contact with criminal peers
• use of CBT can reduce recidivism more than a third
criminal thinking - antisocial attitudes and habits of thought
• interpreting benign comments as intentionally hostile
• belief that you have been victimized, rejected by society
• justification of criminal behavior
• optimism about your ability to get away with crimes
• inability/lack of effort to carry out long-term plans
• impulsiveness
• callousness toward others
• need for immediate gratification
• inability to control anger
skills targeted in prison-based CBT:
• cognitive skills
• cognitive restructuring
• social skills
• anger control
• moral reasoning
• substance abuse
• behavior modification
• relapse prevention
• individual attention
 alternatives to prison:
death penalty → LWOP → long prison term
least serious is a fine
forfeiture of goods and instrumentalities
restitution - paying with money/labor, community service, often used
in combination with probation - increasingly used to compensate
victims, help community, repair damage from minor crimes
probation - 1.5 million people every year, high failure rate
temporary leave - people can leave prison for a day to maintain
connections to family/community
house arrest - parole conditions, enforced by electronic monitoring
residential community corrections centers - halfway houses,
offenders required to get jobs and do chores, goal is to ease reentry
into society

• all of these alternatives are cheaper than prison

• prison is too severe for some crimes, may make people more
likely to reoffend
• there's not enough public money to build/maintain enough
prisons for every convicted criminal
• alternatives allow first-time offenders and people convicted of
less serious crimes to avoid trauma and stigma of
imprisonment
PSY 205 Module 5 Sentencing Lecture

This week we're going to talk mainly about sentencing evaluations. Now if you recall a
couple of weeks ago, we talked about an evaluation to determine competency to stand
trial and to participate in one's own defense. There's a difference between competency
evaluations and sentencing evaluations. Competency evaluations determine if someone
can participate in their own defense. A sentencing evaluation means that someone has
been convicted or is about to be convicted of a crime and the judge or the attorneys are
looking for some suggestions as to what sentencing might be the most effective for that
particular criminal or inmate.

Now first of all, there's not a lot of agreement out there about what sentencing is and
the whole purpose of sentencing. There are those for example who believe that the
purpose of jails and prisons is simply to protect society from criminals and so we keep
them locked up. Now in the case of very, very dangerous criminals that's probably the
best we can hope for.

There are those who also believe that incarceration is a way to teach someone a lesson
and that it's rehabilitative. Unfortunately, the research doesn't really support that. For
people that need rehabilitation, and this means all sorts of rehabilitation from drug
rehabilitation to just psychological rehabilitation, the prison system in general has not
been shown effective in rehabilitating criminals. In fact, it becomes a hothouse if you
will for breeding criminal activity. And there have been some studies that have shown
actually that people who are not too criminal when they go to prison end up more
criminal as a result of their incarceration. But there are those who believe that prison
should be a place of rehabilitation.

There are also those who believe that prison is simply a way to pay for one's crime.
Whether it's rehabilitative or not or whether it's to protect society from that criminal or
not, the main purpose is you commit a crime and you pay the piper so to speak and you
pay the price for that crime. So there are differing ideas. There are probably more than
that, but those are some of the big ideas about what sentencing is.

In my experience as a forensic psychologist, there's a wide variation among judges in

terms of sentencing. There are usually sentencing guidelines but those sentencing
guidelines have some leeway. There are various options available to many judges in
passing a sentence on to someone who's been convicted of a crime.

And so one of the things we'll look at this week is we will look at a real life case. Once
again the identity of the person evaluated has been protected, but you're going to look
at a real life case of someone who's been convicted of a crime and now is awaiting
sentencing. And I was asked to go in as a forensic psychologist and do a sentencing
evaluation of this young man. I make sentencing recommendations and then the judge
is the one who finally does the sentencing. And so whether or not my sentencing
recommendation gets followed through on is totally up to the judge. But based on my
best information at the time that I did the evaluation, I did indeed make a
recommendation for this young man.

So, enjoy the reading. It's an interesting discussion to talk about what is the nature of
sentencing, what is the role of sentencing, how do we keep society safe, and can you
rehabilitate criminals. And if so, what is the best way to do that? Enjoy your learning
module.
 EVENTUS MAINE LLC

sentencing evaluation
Pre-Sentencing Psychological Evaluation

Name: Jules Bronson

Date of Birth: April 18, 1977

Evaluation Date: February 22, 2010

Date of Report: March 1, 2010

Evaluation Methods: Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, second edition (K-BIT2); Millon
Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-III); Rorschach Inkblot Test; Substance Abuse
Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI-3); Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI); record
review; client interview

Examiner: William M. Barter, Ph.D., Licensed Psychologist

Background: Mr. Bronson was referred to Eventus by his attorney, Thomas J. Connolly,
for the purpose of a pre-sentencing psychological evaluation.

Evaluation Objectives: The purpose of this evaluation is to determine to the best extent
possible Mr. Bronson‟ psychological and emotional functioning and how it may impact
his interaction with society and with others in general. Recommendations for sentencing,
placement, and treatment will be made as appropriate.

Informed Consent: At his initial meeting with Dr. Barter, informed consent for services
was obtained from Mr. Bronson. He affirmed understanding that the purpose of the
evaluation was to assess his current psychological and emotional functioning. He
affirmed that he understood the non-confidential nature of the evaluation if allegations of
child abuse or elder abuse arose in the course of the interview. Finally, he affirmed
understanding the risks and benefits of undergoing such an evaluation. After the
evaluation process was explained to him, he had no questions for Dr. Barter. He was
made aware that he could terminate the evaluation at any time, and that he could
postpone the evaluation to consult an attorney.

Record Review: Upon referral to Eventus, two distinct sets of records were provided,
one of which is the history of the criminal activity that took place in April 2001 when Mr.
Bronson held up Pico‟s Pizza in Westbrook. The investigative report of the Westbrook
Police Department was made available and in the course of conducting the investigation,
the Westbrook Police were able to elicit fairly detailed confession by Mr. Bronson not
only about the robbery but also another area robbery. On May 5, 2001 just two weeks
after the offense, Mr. Bronson sent an apology letter to Maria Lonzo, the owner of Pico‟s
Pizza. On December 29, 2001, Gary McKenney, a licensed alcohol and drug counselor,
verified that Mr. Bronson had completed phases one, two, and

68 PLEASANT ST., BRU NSWICK, ME 04011 -2203

PHONE: 207.782.7720 • FAX: 207.333.3232
 Jules Bronson
Psychological Report
Page 2 of 11

three and was currently enrolled in phase four of the substance abuse education and
counseling program at the Cumberland County Jail. Mr. McKenney went on to state that
by completing 24 hours of group counseling and 1 hour of individual counseling, Mr.
Bronson had demonstrated a commitment to recovery and a dedication to improving the
quality of his life.

On March 6, 2003, a sentencing memo was produced by Joel Vincent, the attorney for
Jules Bronson, relative to the 2001 robbery of Pico‟s and Pizza Hut. Mr. Vincent cited
Mr. Bronson‟ turbulent childhood and history of abuse. His attorney believed that Mr.
Bronson was a viable candidate for the adult drug court as a condition of probation
because he had complied with his treatment while incarcerated. Mr. Vincent argued for
an unsuspended sentence of three years and a period of probation of six years with a
condition of probation that he be screened for the adult drug court. On April 4, 2003, the
Honorable Robert E. Crowley of the Superior Court in Cumberland County sentenced
Mr. Bronson to 14 years with all but 7 years suspended and 6 years of probation for the
robberies.

According to Attorney Connolly, while at the pre-release at the county jail during the
nine months prior to release, Mr. Bronson did very well. The structured environment and
the availability of productive work while at the pre-release center allowed him to do so.
He was drug free and motivated and he was creating a business and establishing himself
as a dependable painter. However, according to Mr. Connolly, upon Mr. Bronson‟ release
from the pre-release center, he failed within the first few hours. This occurred when he
went to his wife‟s apartment upon his release and found her in a vulnerable and distressed
state. She was reportedly in need of a fix and begged her husband for his help. Mr.
Bronson helped her obtain drugs and she then convinced him that it would be okay for
him to use also, which he did. Mr. Bronson then engaged in a shoplifting spree with his
wife and a friend. He shared in some of the proceeds of the theft of items that he sold on
behalf of the others involved.

At the end of October 2009, Probation Officer Tamson Ross filed a Motion for Probation
Revocation because Mr. Bronson failed to report police contact and failed to refrain from
the use of unlawful drugs. He also failed to report to probation within 48 hours of release,
which took place on August 27, 2009. He also failed to refrain from new criminal
conduct in that he committed the offensive theft class C in South Portland. Despite being
told to report for probation on October 5, 2009, Mr. Bronson failed to do so.

On October 17, 2009, Probation Officer Tamson Ross produced a Level of Service
Inventory report that indicated high risk for Mr. Bronson and a recommendation of no
bail and full revocation of probation.

Upon referral to Eventus, Mr. Bronson‟ attorney also provided a 13 page handwritten
autobiographical history presented by Mr. Bronson. Mr. Bronson detailed some of the
family dysfunction, which he also spoke of in the evaluation that follows.
 Jules Bronson
Psychological Report
Page 3 of 11

Personal History: Mr. Bronson stated that he was born in Portland, the son of Frank
Loranzo and Lola Bronson. He stated that Frank and Lola had two children and this
included himself and his younger sister, Crystal. He stated that both of his parents have a
child from subsequent relationships. He said that he was two years old when his parents
separated and that for a time he lived with his maternal grandmother. He stated that at the
age of three he was sexually molested by his grandmother‟s brother. He stated that his
mother pushed the children aside and was in a relationship with a man on and off. He
stated that he would live with his grandmother during those times of uncertainty and
sometimes his mother would live with them as well. He stated that he remembers the
whole sexual abuse like it happened yesterday. He said that the abuse was just reported
within the family and it was a big family secret. He stated that for a while his mother
came and got the children when she found out about the abuse, but she did not keep the
children for an extended period of time. He stated that he went back and forth between
paternal and maternal grandmothers. He said that his father was not in his life at all. He
said that he knows his father but they are not close. He described his mother as currently
being a best friend and said that he talks to her five or six times daily.

Mr. Bronson stated that he and his family lived off the state but they got what they
needed to grow up. He stated that he grew up in the City of Portland and his mother
worked off and on. He does not recall his father ever paying child support. He then stated
that the father did not do “shit” for the family. He stated that his father still works as a
trainer and was a serious body builder with a full gym on the second floor of his mother‟s
house.

Mr. Bronson stated that there were no other instances of child sex abuse. He stated that
the abuse that he suffered at the age of three consisted of his great uncle making him
perform fellatio, which he called “a blowjob”. He stated that it only happened once and
he does not remember if his uncle ejaculated. He stated that he tried to run away but he
pulled him the hair back into the boiler room to sexually abuse him. He stated that he
never had counseling for the abuse. He stated that he has never really had mental health
treatment at all.

Mr. Bronson stated that he attended Portland public schools and was a good student in
elementary school, so much so that he was allowed to skip the fourth grade.

Mr. Bronson stated that he was expelled from King Middle School and he also got into a
fight at Lyman Moore. He stated that he was transferred to Lincoln Middle School where
a teacher took him under his wing. He said that he liked to draw and he came in second in
a New England drawing contest sponsored by Shop „n Save. He stated that he attended
Deering High School and left in the middle of the tenth grade. He said that at that time he
was having a lot of problems at home and his sister was in and out of Jackson Brook
Institute (now Spring Harbor Hospital). He stated that his mother was never there for the
children and so he had to take care of himself and get himself ready for school every day.
 Jules Bronson
Psychological Report
Page 4 of 11

Mr. Bronson stated that he was expelled from Deering for fighting and he spit on the
principal. He stated that he then went to the school on Douglas Street and Bill
Suttleworth was the principal and helped him out a great deal. He was also allowed to
continue in sports as long as he stayed in school. He stated that he was in and out of
school, however, and ran away at the age of 15 and never graduated from high school. He
stated that he played basketball at a Boy‟s Club. He said that he has since obtained his
GED at the Cumberland County Jail. With regard to his educational goals, Mr. Bronson
stated that he is trying to go back to get an electrician‟s license.

Asked about significant relationships, Mr. Bronson stated that the mother of his oldest
child is named Willita. He said that this was a two-week relationship and he has no
contact with the child that was born of that relationship. He stated that he was then with a
girl named Naomi for 5 years until the age of 20. He stated that it was the worst
relationship ever and that they stayed with Naomi‟s mother but when her mother was
evicted, they moved from house to house. He stated that Naomi would sleep around with
other guys even when she was a teenager and they were adults. He said that she was
sleeping with all of his friends. He said that he was not able to leave her for some reason,
however. He stated that it got to the point of him doing drugs really bad and he ultimately
chose drugs over Naomi. He stated that she gave him an ultimatum of the drugs or her
and he chose the drugs. He stated that whenever she started liking somebody else she
would put a PFA on him. He stated that there was no violence between them and that he
has never hit a woman.

Mr. Bronson stated that he was in a relationship with Liz, who is also the mother of a
child of his. He stated that he met her because a good friend was with her for one-year
prior. He stated that he was with Liz for one and a half years until he went to jail for
robbery. He stated that the child‟s name is Dearly Love Bronson. He stated that she was 3
months pregnant when he went into jail and she waited 14 months before breaking off the
relationship. He stated that subsequently he found out that she lied about having been
unfaithful. Mr. Bronson stated that he was subsequently in a relationship with Keisha for
three years but he was in jail and he met her through an old roommate. He stated that she
would write to him and visit. He said that they had no children and that she slept with
somebody else and told him about it five months before he was released.

Mr. Bronson stated that his wife‟s name is Kulani and that he met her through a cousin.
He stated that he met her in November 2007 and was with her until he was jailed in
October 2009. Asked why he married her and none of the other women, he stated that she
wanted to get married but he did not. He stated that when she insisted on going to City
Hall and getting married, he responded, “Whatever let‟s go”. He stated that everything
was Kulani‟s way and what she wanted to do and that she has control over everything. He
stated that she is currently pregnant but he is not sure if the child is his. He said that he
has filed for divorce. He stated that on August 27, 2009 he had done nine months and
when he got home she was dopesick. He stated that he talked to her about getting clean
but he ended up going out and getting drugs for her and she was too sick to use the drugs
so he did the drugs himself. He stated that they engaged in theft and Kulani subsequently
 Jules Bronson
Psychological Report
Page 5 of 11

went to rehabilitation and is now on Subutex. He described their relationship as “a lot of

guys, girls, and money”. He stated that he and Kulani got money for doing shows for
people and having sex in front of people. He stated that he engaged in some private
dancing and some prostitution as well. He then added that he is not in any relationships
now and he is finished with relationships while he concentrates on himself because he is
clean. He added, however, that he hates being alone.

Asked about his health, Mr. Bronson stated that he is generally healthy except that he has
Hepatitis C from IV drug use. He stated that he is not currently on treatment for Hepatitis
C because it is not acute. Mr. Bronson stated that when he was 18 a benign tumor was
removed from his kidney. He stated that the Hepatitis C was diagnosed in 2003. He stated
that he is not HIV positive and has no other STDs. He also stated that he has 20/20 vision
and good hearing.

Asked about substance use or abuse, Mr. Bronson stated that at the age of 14 he started
using alcohol and he drank throughout his teen years and was in and out of bars. He
stated that he hung out with older men and they would get alcohol for him. He stated that
his uncle would take him to bars and slip him drinks. He stated that he was in a car
accident at the age of 18 and started using pain pills and quickly became addicted. He
stated that he is not a marijuana smoker. He stated that he got into street drugs and bought
OxyContin and did a lot of heroin. He stated that his aunt showed him how to inject drugs
and he enjoyed it a lot more. He added, however, that his aunt died of a drug overdose.

Mr. Bronson stated that he has been at the Mercy Detoxification for three-day programs.
He stated that when he has not had anything he would go through withdrawals and it is
the last option. He stated that he never went to Mercy to get into recovery and Mercy
eventually stopped taking him. He stated that even while he was on Methadone, he was
still shooting Oxys. He stated that at one point he went through $170,000 in drugs. He
said that he does not attend recovery groups in jail because even though there is AA,
people do not take it seriously.

In terms of what the drugs do for him, Mr. Bronson stated that he does not care about
anything around him when he is on drugs. He stated that he is relaxed and nothing else
matters. He stated that he feels like he can talk and he feels sheltered by the drug feeling.
He stated that he never really trusted anybody to talk to. Mr. Bronson stated that he plans
to stay clean and wants to get out to a rehab and go to get his electrician‟s license. He
stated that he would like to take advantage of the drug court system.
has goals
Mr. Bronson stated that the time in jail does not bother him but it is what happens when
he gets out that makes him concerned. He stated that he needs a good solid program to
change the pattern of his life. He said that he gets very discouraged. He said nothing is
changing because jail is what he knows. He stated that in general the judge and the DA
have not supported drug court but he hopes that this changes.
 Jules Bronson
Psychological Report
Page 6 of 11

Regarding criminal history, Mr. Bronson stated that he has two charges for class A armed
robbery in Cumberland County and one charge of robbery conspiracy and attempted in
York County. He stated that he was on probation for assault in 1998 but forgets who the
victim was. He stated that he violated his probation a lot back then and had dirty urine
tests and did 30 days. He stated that that particular probation is finished. He stated that he
is currently on probation hold because of being caught stealing from Target in the fall of
2009. He stated that he has never had any trafficking or possession charges or any drug
related charges. He also stated that he is awaiting sentencing for violating probation and
failure to report.

Mr. Bronson was asked to talk a little more about his childhood and sexual history given
his victimization. He stated that at the age of 10 he was checking his body development
and his stepfather saw him and beat him up for it. He stated that after he beat him up and
left him on the floor he called him a faggot. He described his puberty as normal. He said
that he became sexually active at the age of 15. He stated that he had some normal
adolescent sexual experimentation with friends, etc. He described himself as primarily
heterosexual. He stated that he does not remember being sexually abused as an older
child. He stated that the grandmother does not believe the allegations from when he was
three years old. He stated that he forgives his abuser to some extent because his great
uncle, the perpetrator, is now dying and is an old man. Mr. Bronson stated that he has
never been forced to have sex and never forced anybody to have sex.

Despite his statement that he had never been sexually abused as an older child, Mr.
Bronson went on to describe a family friend who was in his sixties who would buy him
things and would leave him (Mr. Bronson) feeling beholden for the generosity. He stated
that this 60-year-old man took him snowmobiling up in northern Maine when he was
only 14 and he gave him alcohol. He sated that he came in and out of consciousness on
the bed and was naked with this man kneeling next to him. He stated that he kept him
there for two days despite the fact that he begged to go home to see his mother. He stated
that he finally called home and this man became nervous and took him home. When
asked by the evaluator if he felt that he might have been sexually abused by this man, he
seemed a bit surprised at first but then realized that even as a teenager he had been
exploited by adults sexually, likely including this 60-year-old man.

Mr. Bronson stated that he has no history of counseling. He stated that he has no history
at the Long Creek Youth Development Center. He stated that he has no history of being
in group homes and no history of psychiatric treatment. He stated, however, that he
knows he self-medicates when he is feeling bad psychologically.

Mr. Bronson stated that he sometimes has racing thoughts but not when he is using drugs.
He denied having any racing thoughts during our interview. He described some dysphoric
periods, but he said that he does fairly well in controlled settings such as the jail. He said,
however, that there are periods during which he cannot stop crying and things just build
up inside and let loose. He stated that he always has had a hard time trusting people. He
stated that despite his mood dysregulation he is never a violent person. Mr. Bronson
 Jules Bronson
Psychological Report
Page 7 of 11

stated that he has a good appetite and that he works out and does yoga and meditates. He
said that he sleeps about eight hours at night. He stated that he takes Doxepin to help him
sleep. He said that he has also been diagnosed with PTSD. He denied any visual or
auditory hallucinations. When given a mental status exam, he was fully oriented to
person, time, and place.

Mr. Bronson stated that a gentleman by the name of Donald, who started out as a pen pal,
has taken him under his wing and has been very helpful. He stated that Don is nearing
retirement and is a successful businessman. He stated that upon release he would like to
go stay with Don who lives in the Allens, Maine area. He stated that Don has a lot of
corporate friends and would like to buy properties and renovate them with the help of Mr.
Bronson. He stated that he would really like to get out of the Portland area as soon as
possible after release.

Asked if he has any plans for parenting, Mr. Bronson stated that he has contact with
Dearly and he used to take her every weekend. He said that he would like to get his life
together. He said that if Kulani‟s child is his, he wants full custody of the child. He stated
that Kulani is currently in a very unhealthy relationship. He said, however, that for him to
make such a commitment would require paternity testing.

Clinical Impressions: Mr. Bronson is a man who appears to be his stated age. He is of
athletic to muscular build. He was interviewed and tested at the Cumberland County Jail
and was dressed in prisoner garb. He appeared cooperative with jail staff, and was not
shackled. He was well groomed and clean-shaven. He was apparently free from intrusive
thought and was fully oriented to person, time, and place throughout the evaluation
process. He was pleasant and cooperative with the psychologist.

Psychometric Testing Results: Mr. Bronson was administered the Kaufman Brief
Intelligence Test (K-BIT2). He obtained a K-BIT I.Q. Composite standard score of 94
(average) with a 90% confidence interval of 87-101. The results of this administration of
the K-BIT2 indicate intact I.Q. that falls within the average range. Mr. Bronson was by
all accounts a bright young man who should not have difficulty succeeding in intellectual
pursuits if desired.

Mr. Bronson completed the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-III). As might
be suggested, his responses evidenced high levels of drug dependence. He also reported
very high manic activation as part of a possible bipolar process and secondarily some
major depressive symptoms. On Axis II, his clinical personality patterns reveal
Dependent and Antisocial Personality Disorder with negativistic and self-defeating
features.

Mr. Bronson was administered the Rorschach Inkblot Test and his 16 responses to the
blots were sufficient in number and quality to support valid hypotheses. Mr. Bronson
appears to be in a state of chronic and substantial stimulus overload resulting from
persistent difficulty in mustering adequate psychological resources to cope with the
 Jules Bronson
Psychological Report
Page 8 of 11

demands being imposed on him by internal and external events in his life. Because his
adaptive capacities are not sufficient for him to manage the ideational and emotional
stressors in his life without becoming unduly upset by them, he is at risk for recurrent
episodes of overt anxiety, tension, nervousness, and irritability. People with this pattern
of stimulus overload tend to have limited tolerance for frustration and less than average
ability to persevere in the face of obstacles; consequently they may show a tendency
toward impulsive outbursts of unwarranted affect or ill-advised actions. The degree of his
stimulus overload is likely to be preoccupying and disorganizing. Even in fairly
structured situations in which he knows what is expected of him, he is at risk for
becoming psychologically incapacitated at least temporarily and appearing to others as
noticeably agitated or distraught. Because of the considerable dissatisfaction he is likely
to be experiencing with himself or his life at this point, Mr. Bronson is more likely than
most people to feel the need to change and to be receptive to interventions designed to
reduce his level of subjectively felt distress. In light of indications that his adaptive
capacities are below average for an adult, he is more likely to benefit in treatment from
an approach focused on helping him to improve his coping skills and to learn effective
strategies for stress management than from effort to reduce the stressors in his life
specifically.

The Rorschach further revealed that Mr. Bronson appears to be experiencing some
intrusive posttraumatic ideation consisting of disconcerting and worrisome thoughts that
serve no apparent purpose and are likely to be impairing his ability to concentrate. He
gives evidence of a cautious approach to interpersonal situations which may contribute to
a greater than average susceptibility to experiencing stress in social settings and in close
involvement with others. He shows a potentially maladaptive style of experiencing and
expressing affect in which he exerts more stringent control over his feelings than most
adults. He is likely to be an emotionally reserved person who has difficulty relaxing
emotionally, being spontaneous, showing his feelings, and relating to others on a casual
and informal basis. Mr. Bronson shows adaptive capacity for and interest in being
introspective. Independent of the extent to which he is self-focused in general, he has a
moderate level of self-awareness that contributes to his being cognizant of how best to
meet his own needs, sensitive to the way his behavior affects other people, and
reasonably open to reconsidering his self-image and impression of himself. This capacity
for introspection and self-awareness is a personality asset that typically facilitates
effective participation in psychotherapy and positive personality change. Mr. Bronson
appears to have limited ability to manage interpersonal relationships in a comfortable and
rewarding manner. He may conduct himself appropriately in social situations and at times
even make an initially favorable impression on other people. Nevertheless, as a
consequence of inadequate social skills that may not be readily apparent, he tends to opt
for superficial and transient relationships with others and to back away from involved or
prolonged relationships out of concern that they will make more demands on him than he
can handle. He appears capable of thinking in a flexible manner that facilitates his being
able to contemplate alternative prospections on his experience, to consider changing his
point of view, and to keep his mind open to new information in previously unfamiliar
ideas, no matter how long or firmly he has held his present opinions and beliefs. Such
 Jules Bronson
Psychological Report
Page 9 of 11

flexibility is a personality asset that promotes good adjustment and contributes to

progress in psychotherapy, although it does not ensure that a person will always think
logically and coherently.

Mr. Bronson completed the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI-3). His
responses were open and honest and yielded a valid profile. Not surprisingly, Mr.
Bronson provided a profile that shows a high probability of having a substance
dependence disorder.

Mr. Bronson completed the Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI), a measure of the
symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. His responses were open and honest and
yielded a valid profile. The TSI is generally used in the evaluation of acute and chronic
posttraumatic symptomology, including the effects of rape, spousal abuse, physical
assault, combat experiences, major accidents, natural disasters, as well as the lasting
sequelae of childhood sex abuse and physical abuse and other early traumatic events. The
various scales of the TSI assess a wide range of psychological impacts. There were two
significant elevations on the TSI. First of all, Mr. Bronson endorsed Defensive
Avoidance. This is a posttraumatic avoidance that is both cognitive and behavioral and
follows on the heels of inadequate resolution of posttraumatic stress. Mr. Bronson also
endorsed dysfunctional sexual behavior. This means that he reported sexual behavior that
is somewhat dysfunctional either because of its indiscriminant quality, its potential for
self-harm, or its inappropriate use to accomplish non-sexual goals.

Conclusions and Recommendations:

DSM- IV Multiaxial Diagnosis

Axis I: 309.81 Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (Primary Diagnosis)

304.80 Polysubstance Dependence
296.80 Bipolar Disorder, not otherwise specified
300.4 Dysthymic Disorder

Axis II: 301.6 Dependent Personality Disorder

301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder
301.9 Personality Disorder, not otherwise specified, with negativistic and
self-defeating features

Based on testing and history, Mr. Bronson evidences significant deficits in mental and
personality functioning, He is also polysubstance dependent, and this exacerbates his
faulty self-regulation quite significantly.

Mr. Bronson has a significant trauma history, some of which he does not fully realize or
appreciate. While he can identify the sex abuse he suffered at age 3, he seemed entirely
 Jules Bronson
Psychological Report
Page 10 of 11

unaware that being taken advantage of by an older man as a young teen also constituted
child sex abuse and victimization. The memory he describes as age 3 is likely what is
known as a “flashbulb” memory. Generally, children have little to no memory of events
before their early scholastic careers, but in the case of significant and traumatic events,
bits and pieces of memory remain. That Mr. Bronson has a fairly intact flashbulb memory
of being grabbed by the hair at age 3 as he was being sexually abused, strongly suggests
that his sexual victimization was more traumatic and enduring than he remembers. By his
own report, he has received no appropriate treatment for his trauma. His use of sex as a
survival mechanism is further evidence of reenactment often seen in the victims of sex
abuse.

At a young age, Mr. Bronson learned to medicate his trauma and manic activation with
drugs and alcohol. His bipolar process and untreated trauma are extremely high risk
factors for self-medication, and will continue to be so until he receives adequate
psychiatric and psychotherapeutic treatment.

Mr. Bronson has significant Axis II personality pathology. The most vexing has been his
Dependent Personality Disorder. This is characterized by entering into and remaining in
unhealthy relationships, even when those relationships are clearly destructive. He dreads
being alone in life, and this is also symptomatic of the disorder. His self-defeating traits
lead him to “shoot himself in the foot” when it comes to making decisions.

Mr. Bronson‟ antisociality is also problematic. It is possible, however, that with sustained
remission from his substance abuse, the antisocial symptoms will remit. Overall,
intoxication and drug activation, along with drug withdrawal, have led him to engage in
antisocial behavior in the service of his addiction.

A significant finding on the Rorschach Inkblot Test (and to some degree in the interview
and history) is that Mr. Bronson is a good candidate for treatment. Indicators on the
structural summary of the Rorschach using the Comprehensive System are that he is
amenable to change. He has grown tired of the trajectory of his life, and is likely ready to
open up in therapy.

It is strongly recommended that Mr. Bronson be afforded Drug Court sentencing. He

should also be allowed to follow his plan of leaving the Portland area and moving to the
Bangor area to pursue gainful employment. He must engage in intensive psychotherapy
to address his abuse trauma. In addition, he needs a full psychiatric consultation to
determine if a mood-stabilizing regimen could reduce his need self-medicate his bipolar
process. While there is no medication to treat Axis II personality pathology,
psychotherapy would be most helpful in this case, as Mr. Bronson will need to address
his dependency needs in relationships, as well as his self-defeating and defective
decision-making processes.

By his own admission (and history), Mr. Bronson does best in structured settings. He is
rightly concerned about his ability to remain safe outside of the prison system if he is not
 Jules Bronson
Psychological Report
Page 11 of 11

in a very structured treatment regimen that is supervised by the courts. This evaluator
would concur, and would strongly suggest a Drug Court solution for Mr. Bronson that
requires all of the treatment elements listed above.

William M. Barter, Ph.D.

Licensed Psychologist
Maine License # PS1141

WMB/jeb
 ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
Sentencing Reform Act (1984)
Sentencing Reform
Views 1,321,614 Updated
Act (1984)

"Sentencing Reform Act

(1984) ." Major Acts of Sentencing Reform Act (1984)
Congress. . Retrieved March 18,
Barry L. Johnson
2024 from [Link]:
[Link]
Excerpt from the Sentencing
history/encyclopedias-almanacs-
transcripts-and-maps/ Reform Act
sentencing-reform-act-1984
There is established as an
independent commission in the
judicial branch of the United States (/places/united-states-and-
canada/us-political-geography/united-states) a United States
YOU MIGHT ALSO
(/places/united-states-and-canada/us-political-geography/united- LIKE
states) Sentencing Commission which shall consist of seven voting
Sentencing: Disparity
members and one nonvoting member.... The purposes of the United
(Https://[Link]/Law/Legal-
States (/places/united-states-and-canada/us-political-
And-Political-Magazines/Sentencing-
geography/united-states) Sentencing Commission are to (1)
Disparity)
establish sentencing policies and practices for the Federal criminal
justice system that (A) assure the meeting of the purposes of Sentencing: Guidelines

sentencing ... (B) provide certainty and fairness in meeting the (Https://[Link]/Law/Legal-

purposes of sentencing, avoiding unwarranted sentencing And-Political-Magazines/Sentencing-

disparities among defendants with similar records that have been Guidelines)

found guilty of similar criminal conduct ... and (C) reflect, to the
U.S. Sentencing Commission
extent practicable, advancement in knowledge of human behavior
(Https://[Link]/Law/Encyclop
as it relates to the criminal justice process....
Almanacs-Transcripts-And-Maps/Us-Sentenc

Commission)
The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (P.L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1987)
marked a fundamental change in federal criminal sentencing policy Sentencing And Sentencing Guidelines

and practice. Part of the broader Comprehensive Crime Control Act (Https://[Link]/Law/Encyclop

of 1984, the Sentencing Reform Act abolished parole in the federal Almanacs-Transcripts-And-Maps/Sentencing-

system (although it did not affect the many state criminal justice Sentencing-Guidelines)

systems that continued to use parole) and created the United States
Sentencing Commission. This administrative body was given the Sentencing: Allocation Of Authority

task of crafting guidelines governing criminal sentencing in federal (Https://[Link]/Law/Legal-

courts. And-Political-Magazines/Sentencing-

Allocation-Authority)
FEDERAL SENTENCING PRIOR TO THE
ACCUMULATIVE SENTENCE
SENTENCING REFORM ACT
(Https://[Link]/Law/Encyclop

Prior to the Sentencing Reform Act, federal judges had extremely Almanacs-Transcripts-And-Maps/Accumulat

broad discretion in sentencing. Most criminal statutes provided only Sentence)

broad maximum terms of imprisonment. Federal judges were free to

Sentencing: Procedural Protection
impose any sentence, ranging from probation to the statutory
(Https://[Link]/Law/Legal-
maximum. No meaningful appeal of the sentence was available to
And-Political-Magazines/Sentencing-
the offender. Sentencing decisions therefore reflected each judge's
Procedural-Protection)
individual notions of justice and views of the purposes of
Sentencing: Mandatory And Mandatory
sentencing, and sentences for similar offenses varied dramatically
Minimum Sentences
depending on the identity of the sentencing judge. Moreover,
(Https://[Link]/Law/Legal-
discretion in the system was not limited to sentencing judges. The
And-Political-Magazines/Sentencing-
introduction of parole into the federal system in 1910 left each
Mandatory-And-Mandatory-Minimum-
prisoner's release date to the discretion of parole officials, although
Sentences)
most prisoners were ineligible for parole until one-third of their
sentence was served.

THE DECLINE OF REHABILITATION AS AN IDEAL

The broad discretion of judges and parole officials and the
indeterminate length of prison sentences prior to the Sentencing
Reform Act stemmed from a concept known as offender
rehabilitation. Prison-based rehabilitation programs were designed
to reduce crime by helping offenders to function normally in society
once their prison terms ended. As many experts in the field of
criminal justice saw it, the rehabilitation of offenders required
Congress give judges and parole officials sufficient discretion to NEARBY TERMS

permit "individualized sentencing." Under such sentencing, judges Thesauruses-Pictures-And-

could tailor the length and nature of the sentence to the specific Press-Releases/Sent-0)
rehabilitative needs of the individual offender. Sensus Fidelium

(/Religion/Encyclopedias-
By the 1970s, however, studies questioning the effectiveness of
Almanacs-Transcripts-And-
prison-based rehabilitation programs in reducing crime led to a
Maps/Sensus-Fidelium)
widespread loss of faith in the power of prisons to rehabilitate
Sensuous Summer (/Arts/Culture-
criminals. Many criminologists publicly questioned the effectiveness
Magazines/Sensuous-
of prison-based rehabilitation while others challenged the legitimacy
Summer)
of the entire rehabilitation-based sentencing scheme. Theorists such
as Andrew von Hirsch advocated a sentencing system that
authorized punishment of offenders exclusively in proportion to the
seriousness of their crimes. This theory was called "just desserts"—
in simple terms, offenders would get the sentences they deserved.
According to this view, the rehabilitative scheme was illegitimate,
because it kept offenders who were not successfully rehabilitated in
prison for time periods well in excess of the punishment deserved.

As the rehabilitative ideal declined and the just desserts approach

to sentencing gained ground, experts in the field became
increasingly aware of the problems created by a sentencing system
that gave discretion to judges. The chief problem was that judicial
sentencing led to disparities, or inequalities, in sentences set for the
same crimes. Judge Marvin Frankel's classic 1973 book, Criminal
Sentences: Law Without Order, highlighted this problem. Judge
Frankel, a sitting U.S. district judge, noted that "widely unequal
sentences are imposed every day in great numbers for crimes and
criminals not essentially distinguishable from each other." Judge
Frankel explained that unequal treatment of offenders who had
committed similar crimes was caused by the virtually unlimited
discretion he and his colleagues on the federal bench enjoyed. He
charged that this discretion was "terrifying and intolerable for a
society that professes devotion to the rule of law." To address this
problem, he urged the creation of an administrative agency, a
Commission on Sentencing, that would be responsible for enacting
rules to guide federal courts in the process of criminal sentencing.

PASSAGE OF THE SENTENCING REFORM ACT

The work of Judge Frankel and other critics of sentencing disparity
prompted Senator Edward Kennedy, a Democrat (/social-sciences-
and-law/political-science-and-government/political-parties-and-
movements/democratic) from Massachusetts, to sponsor sentencing
reform legislation in 1975. Although early reform efforts failed,
Senator Kennedy continued to sponsor reform bills in succeeding
terms of Congress.

By the early 1980s the political climate in Washington had changed

considerably, as Ronald Reagan entered the White House
(/places/united-states-and-canada/us-national-park-system/white-
house) and Republicans (/social-sciences-and-law/political-science-
and-government/political-parties-and-movements/republican)
assumed control of Congress. This political shift did not, however,
kill the sentencing reform movement. Conservative members of
Congress, including Republican Senators Strom Thurmond
(/people/history/us-history-biographies/strom-thurmond) of South
Carolina (/places/united-states-and-canada/us-political-
geography/south-carolina) and Orrin Hatch of Utah (/places/united-
states-and-canada/us-political-geography/utah), joined forces with
liberal (/philosophy-and-religion/ancient-religions/ancient-
religion/liberalism) sponsors of sentencing reform. This bipartisan
support for guidelines-based sentencing reform eventually resulted
in the attachment of the Sentencing Reform Act (as part of the
Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984) to an omnibus funding
bill. President Ronald Reagan signed the bill into law on October 12,
1984. With passage of the Sentencing Reform Act, the U.S.
Sentencing Commission was born.

THE COMMISSION AND THE GUIDELINES

Congress had two major purposes in enacting the Sentencing
Reform Act: first, promoting "honesty in sentencing," and second,
reducing "unjustifiably wide" sentencing disparity. Honesty in
sentencing referred to the impact of parole. Under parole
guidelines, it was not uncommon for an offender who was
sentenced to fifteen years to be released on parole after serving
only five. Congress addressed this issue by abolishing parole, and
creating a system of "real-time" sentencing. In the wake of the
Sentencing Reform Act, the sentence imposed by the judge is the
sentence served by the offender, subject only to a minor adjustment
for "good time" credits, administered by the Bureau of Prisons.

Congress addressed the problem of unwarranted sentencing

disparity by creating the commission and instructing it to establish
sentencing guidelines to limit and structure the sentencing
discretion of federal judges. The commission consisted of seven
members, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
At least three members of the commission had to be federal judges,
and no more than four commissioners could be affiliated with either
major political party (/social-sciences-and-law/political-science-and-
government/political-science-terms-and-concepts-49).
Although Congress left to the commission the task of crafting the
specific guidelines, it did give the commission a number of specific
directives. Among them, the Sentencing Reform Act specified that
the guidelines were to be "neutral as to the race, sex, national origin,
creed, and socioeconomic status of the offender," and that the
guidelines should "reflect the general inappropriateness of
considering the education, vocational skills, employment record,
family ties and responsibilities, and community ties" of an offender in
determining the nature or length of his sentence.

The commission worked from its appointment in October 1985 until

April 1987 to create a set of guidelines consistent with congressional
directives. The draft guidelines were submitted for public comment
and congressional approval, and became effective on November 1,
1987.

THE REACTION TO THE GUIDELINES

Shortly after the guidelines took effect, criminal defendants began
filing constitutional challenges to the Sentencing Reform Act. Many
judges declared the Sentencing Reform Act unconstitutional, and by
the summer of 1988 sentencing in the federal courts was in total
disarray. The U.S. Supreme Court finally resolved the constitutional
status of the guidelines in its 1989 decision in Mistretta v. United
States, holding that the Sentencing Reform Act's creation of the
commission and its delegation to the commission of the task of
drafting guidelines were constitutionally permissible, clearing the
way for the implementation of the guidelines in federal courts across
the country.

The guidelines have been in place ever since. However, they remain
controversial. Critics complain that they are excessively harsh,
mechanical, and inflexible. Prominent judges and scholars have
urged total reconsideration of the Sentencing Reform Act and a
return to greater judicial discretion in sentencing. To this point,
however, Congress has not been inclined to change the policies
embodied in the Sentencing Reform Act.

See also: Anti-Drug Abuse Act; Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Francis A. The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal. New Haven
(/places/united-states-and-canada/us-political-geography/new-
haven), CT: Yale University (/social-sciences-and-
law/education/colleges-us/yale-university) Press, 1981.

Committee Report on Sentencing Reform Act. S. Rep. No. 98-225

(1983), reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182 (1984).

Frankel, Marvin E. Criminal Sentences: Law Without Order. New York

(/places/united-states-and-canada/us-political-geography/new-
york): Hill and Wang, 1973.

Martinson, Robert. "What Works?—Question and Answers About

Prison Reform." The Public Interest (Spring 1974): 22.

Nagel, Ilene H. "Structuring Sentencing Discretion: The New Federal

Sentencing Guidelines." 80 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
(1990): 883–943.

Stith, Kate, and Jose A. Cabranes. Fear of Judging: Sentencing

Guidelines in the Federal Courts (/social-sciences-and-
law/law/law/federal-courts). Chicago (/places/united-states-and-
canada/us-political-geography/chicago): University of Chicago
(/social-sciences-and-law/education/colleges-us/university-chicago)
Press, 1998.

Stith, Kate, and Steve Y. Koh. "The Politics of Sentencing Reform:

The Legislative History of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines." 28
Wake Forest Law Review 223 (1993).

Von Hirsch, Andrew. Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishments.

New York (/places/united-states-and-canada/us-political-
geography/new-york): Hill and Wang, 1976.

Results of Sentencing Reform

After the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which provided guidelines
for ensuring that similar crimes received similar punishments,
Congress also enacted mandatory minimum sentences for certain
crimes and drastically increased punishments for repeat offenders.
Crime dropped steadily for more than a decade beginning in 1991,
and while many people give these measures much of the credit,
critics note that aspects of the current system are inherently unfair.
For example, penalties for crack cocaine are one hundred times
 more stringent that penalties for powdered cocaine, because
Congress considered the former a much larger threat at the time the
law was enacted. Liberal (/philosophy-and-religion/ancient-
religions/ancient-religion/liberalism) critics have long maintained that
the sentencing laws for nonviolent crimes are disproportionately
cruel and take a particular toll on minorities and the poor. In
addition, federal judges have become more and more frustrated by
the lack of discretion they are allowed in evaluating the particulars of
a case to hand down an appropriate sentence. Even as crime has
dropped dramatically, the prison population has continued to grow,
in part because of this strict sentencing, reaching a record of more
than two million in 1999. The relationship between large numbers of
inmates and the drop in crime is not clear. The drop during the
1990s can also be attributed to a booming economy, better tactics
by police, and the end of a crack cocaine epidemic.

Major Acts of Congress

More From [Link]

([Link]
([Link]
([Link]
sciences-and- sciences-and- and-arts/language-
Probation Sentence
law/law/law/probation) law/law/law/sentence) linguistics-and-literary-
terms/language-and-
linguistics/complex-
complex sentence
sentence)

([Link]
([Link]
([Link]
sciences-and- and-arts/language- and-arts/language-
Clause
law/law/law/clause) linguistics-and-literary- linguistics-and-literary-
terms/language-and- terms/language-and-
EXCLAMATION
linguistics/compound- linguistics/exclamation)
compound sentence
sentence)

© 2019 [Link] | All rights reserved.

Sentencing Reform Act (1984) 4/5/24
changes to federal criminal sentencing:
• abolished federal parole
• created the US Sentencing Commission
1. Assure the purposes of sentencing are being carried out
2. Provide certainty/fairness in sentencing
3. Reflect advancement in knowledge of human behavior
(prevent unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants
with similar records and guilty of similar crimes)
before this act, federal judges had very broad discretion in
sentencing, criminal statutes only gave maximums - judges could
do anything from probation to statutory maximum
no appeal was available - sentences depended on the judge's view
of justice and interpretation of the sentencing guidelines
introduction of parole in 1910 meant parole officials could choose
prisoners' release dates too
offender rehabilitation - where broad discretion of judges and
indeterminate sentencing came from, tried to help inmates be
successful in society when they got out, this required:
individualized sentencing - judges could tailor the length and nature of
the sentence to the specific rehabilitative needs of the individual
offender
by 1970s, people were questioning effectiveness of rehabilitation,
people began advocating for punishment fits the crime approaches:
just desserts - offenders would get the sentences they deserved
under this view, rehabilitation didn't matter - it kept offenders
who were not successfully rehabilitated in prison for time
periods well in excess of the punishment deserved
when judges were allowed too much discretion in sentencing, it
led to disparities, or inequalities, in sentences set for the same
crimes
Judge Frankel advocated for sentencing commission to provide
guidelines so this doesn't happen
1980s - Reagan took office and Republicans took over
signed Sentencing Reform Act into law October 12, 1984
had two purposes:
• promoting honesty in sentencing
• reducing unjustifiably wide sentencing disparity
referred to the impact of parole - people were getting 15
years but getting paroled after 5, so Congress abolished parole
and used real time sentencing - sentence imposed is sentence
served, subject only to a minor adjustment for "good time"
created a sentencing commission that had to come up with
sentencing guidelines that all judges had to follow
guidelines had to be:
neutral as to race, sex, national origin, creed, and SES
reflect the general inappropriateness of considering also led to
the education, vocational skills, employment record, mandatory
family ties and responsibilities, and community ties minimums
guidelines became effective November 1, 1987
critics say they are harsh, mechanical, and inflexible
[Link] > Nation > National News Special Reports > Supreme Court

Sentencing Guidelines 'Reasonable,' Justices Rule

By Charles Lane
Lane, C. (2007, June
Washington Post Staff Writer
Resize
TOOLBOX

Print
22). Sentencing
Friday, June 22, 2007
E-mail Reprints guidelines 'reasonable,'
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that criminal
sentences within guidelines set by a federal commission are generally entitled to be upheld
justices rule. The
on appeal, a decision that limits legal options for defendants who feel that they have been Washington Post.
punished too harshly.

By a vote of 8 to 1, the court held that, even though it recently ruled that the sentencing
ranges set by the U.S. Sentencing Commission are no longer mandatory, judges who follow
them may be presumed to have acted reasonably.

The ruling, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority, "simply recognizes the real-
world circumstance that when the judge's discretionary decision accords with the
Commission's view . . . it is probable that the sentence is reasonable."

The court's decision was the latest in a line of cases that have been
redefining criminal sentencing since the court ruled in 2000 that the Constitution requires a
jury to prove every fact that a judge might use to increase a defendant's sentence.

In 2005, the court ruled that the federal sentencing guidelines, an elaborate set of rules
designed to ensure that similar crimes be punished similarly across the country, ran afoul of
the jury trial requirement. But it decided that the remedy was to make the guidelines
advisory rather than mandatory, as they had been.

The case that the court decided yesterday, Rita v. United States, No. 06-5754, was meant to
help define "advisory."

Victor Rita, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, asked for a lighter sentence
based in part on his past military service. But the judge gave him 33 months, as suggested by
the guidelines. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, upheld the
sentence, saying that penalties within the guidelines are "presumptively reasonable."

This pattern has been repeated around the country since the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling.

In that sense, legal analysts said, the court's decision at least left defendants no worse off
than they had been.
Breyer's opinion left
"It shores up district court power," said Douglas A. Berman, an expert on sentencing law at open the question of
Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, "but it doesn't tell us anything about what whether the
happens when a district court decides not to follow the general rules." government is entitled
In his dissent yesterday, Justice David H. Souter said that a presumption of reasonableness to have a sentence that
for within-guidelines sentences creates "gravitational pull" on judges, moving them toward goes below the
reliance on the sentencing guidelines and making it unclear what was accomplished by guidelines thrown out as
declaring the guidelines advisory in the first place.
unreasonable. The court
But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, will hear that issue,
Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
which is arguably more
agreed with Breyer, wholly or in part.
important to critics of
In the past, four of those justices -- Stevens, Scalia, Thomas and Ginsburg -- have joined the current sentencing
Souter in supporting a strong right to a jury trial on all sentencing factors. But their
acquiescence in the ruling yesterday appeared to reflect their belief that the court's 2005
policy, in its next term.
decision was entitled to respect as precedent.
Basic Search Opposing Viewpoints

Search... Submit

Advanced Search

Cite

Send to...
Download
Print
Get Link
Highlights and Notes (0)

Your session has timed out after 20 minutes of inactivity. If you do not click continue session, you
will be logged out in 60 seconds

Greenhouse, L. (2007, December 11). Justices restore judges' control

over sentencing. The New York Times, 157(54155).
Justices restore judges' control over
sentencing

Author: Linda Greenhouse

Date: Dec. 11, 2007
From: The New York Times(Vol. 157, Issue 54155)
Publisher: The New York Times Company
Document Type: Article
Length: 1,257 words
Content Level: (Level 5)
Lexile Measure: 1480L

Full Text:

The Supreme Court on Monday restored federal judges to their traditional central role in criminal
sentencing.

In two decisions, the court said federal district judges had broad discretion to impose what they
think are reasonable sentences , even if federal guidelines call for different sentences.
 One decision was particularly emphatic in saying judges are free to disagree with guidelines that
call for much longer sentences for offenses involving crack cocaine than for crimes involving an
equivalent amount of cocaine in powdered form.

Both cases, each decided by the same 7-to-2 alignment, chided federal appeals courts for failing to
give district judges sufficient leeway. The appeals court had in each case overturned a sentence
that was lower than that provided by the guidelines. The two dissenters were Justices Clarence
Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Taken together, the decisions reflected the remarkable trajectory the court has traveled in the seven
years since it overturned a New Jersey hate- crime statute on the ground that the law gave judges
an unconstitutional degree of authority to make the crucial factual determinations that added a
hate-crime ''enhancement'' to an ordinary criminal sentence.

Along with their diminished function under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which set up the
federal sentencing guidelines system, federal judges appeared to have been all but ejected from
their role at the heart of criminal sentencing.

Judges still may not impose sentences above the range written into law by Congress or state
legislatures . But the decision on Monday gives judges broad discretion to impose sentences higher
or lower than the guidelines, which are not statutes and are issued by the United States Sentencing
Commission.

The two decisions answered questions left hanging in 2005, when the court ruled in United States
v. Booker that the federal sentencing guidelines could be constitutional only if ''advisory'' rather than
mandatory. Appeals courts were to review sentences for ''reasonableness,'' the court said then. But
the court did not say what it meant by either ''advisory'' or ''reasonableness.''

Last June, in Rita v. United States, the court ruled that appeals courts could choose to presume
that sentences within the guidelines range were reasonable, but that such a presumption was not
binding. But that opinion was quite opaque and said relatively little about the trial judge's role.

It is now clear that while judges should consult the guidelines, they are just one factor among
others and do not carry any special weight. It is also clear that an appeals court must have a very
good reason of its own to displace the trial judge's judgment.

''The guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark,'' Justice John Paul Stevens
said in one of the decisions on Monday, Gall v. United States, No. 06-7949.

But Justice Stevens went on to say that the guidelines were just one factor in the ''individualized
assessment'' that a judge must make in every case. The judge ''may not presume that the
guidelines range is reasonable,'' he said.

In that case, Brian M. Gall, who had briefly been involved in an Ecstasy distribution ring while a
college student, received a sentence of three years' probation rather than 30 to 36 months in prison
called for by the guidelines.
they still can't sentence above the laws written by Congress or State legislatures but
they can go higher or lower than the guidelines - those are not law
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, ruled that such an
''extraordinary'' variance from the guidelines range required an equivalently extraordinary
justification.

That judgment was erroneous, Justice Stevens said, in failing to give ''due deference'' to the district
judge's ''reasoned and reasonable decision.'' He added that ''if the sentence is outside the
guidelines range, the court may not apply a presumption of unreasonableness.''

Nor, he continued, should a sentence be overturned just because the appeals court ''might
reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate.''

The defendant in the crack cocaine case, Derrick Kimbrough, received 15 years instead of 19 to 22
1/2 for several cocaine and gun-related offenses. The sentence was the lowest possible, given the
statutory mandatory minimum sentences.

The trial judge said the higher guidelines term would be inappropriate for Mr. Kimbrough, a Marine
veteran of the Persian Gulf war with an honorable discharge. The judge also disagreed with the
relative treatment of crack and powdered cocaine, a disparity that he said led to ''disproportionate
and unjust'' results.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., overturned the
sentence on the ground that it was ''per se unreasonable'' for a judge to depart from the guidelines
''based on a disagreement with the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses.''

The Supreme Court took the unusual step of reinstating the original lower sentences, rather than
simply instructing the appeals courts to reconsider the cases under an appropriately deferential
standard of review.

Prof. Douglas A. Berman of the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, an expert on
sentencing, called the decisions a ''stinging rebuke of circuit court micromanagement of district
court discretion.''

The decision in the crack cocaine case, Kimbrough v. United States, No. 06-6330, was particularly
pointed in this regard. In her majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that ordinarily,
''closer review may be in order'' when a judge's sentence is based on a policy disagreement with
the guidelines.

But she went on to say that this higher level of appellate scrutiny should not apply to a sentence
based on a district judge's critique of the crack-powder disparity.

Justice Ginsburg's opinion took account of an important policy development since the case was
argued on Oct. 2. On Nov. 1, amended guidelines for crack cocaine that the United States
Sentencing Commission had long advocated took effect when Congress, which had the power to
block them, let the moment pass without acting.

Justice Ginsburg said that ''this tacit acceptance'' of the amendment by Congress ''undermines the
government's position'' that judges should not have discretion to depart from the guidelines
themselves.

The amendments put into effect a relatively modest change that will reduce sentences for crack by
about one-quarter, resulting in sentences that are two to five times longer than for equivalent
amounts of powdered cocaine.

The commission was limited in what it could accomplish on its own. A 1986 federal law, enacted at
the height of public concern about crack, incorporated a 100 to one ratio into mandatory minimum
sentences -- that is, the same sentence was imposed for a given amount of crack and 100 times
that amount of powder.

The Sentencing Commission guidelines operated as an overlay on that statutory framework. But as
the commission studied the impact, it grew concerned. A 2002 report noted that 85 percent of
defendants convicted of crack offenses were black, a fact the commission warned was leading to a
loss of confidence in the fairness of the system.

Bipartisan bills are pending in Congress to address the disparity. On Tuesday, the Sentencing
Commission will vote on whether to make the Nov. 1 amendment retroactive to the 19,500 inmates
imprisoned for crack offenses.

The court's endorsement of judges' discretion raised the prospect that higher sentences, not only
lower ones, would now be upheld on appeal.

Current statistics indicate that defendants benefit the most when judges depart from the guidelines.
Below-guidelines sentences have been given in 11.9 percent of cases, and above-guidelines
sentences in 1.6 percent. Criminal defense lawyers regarded the decision on Monday as good
news.

''The court has taken the handcuffs off and told judges that 'you are free to apply your mind,''' said
Graham Boyd, director of the Drug Law Reform Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.

By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2007 The New York Times Company

[Link]
Source Citation

MLA 9th Edition APA 7th Edition Chicago 17th Edition Harvard

Greenhouse, Linda. "Justices restore judges' control over sentencing." New York Times, 11 Dec. 2007, p.
A1(L). Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, [Link]/apps/doc/A172282143/OVIC?
u=nhc_main&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=e6e02635. Accessed 5 Apr. 2024.
defendants benefit the most when judges depart from the guidelines:
Disclaimer
• below-guidelines: 11.9% Select

• above-guidelines: 1.6%
Discussion 5: Sentencing and Reasonableness 4/5/24
• Describe how you would tell a "reasonable" sentence from an
unreasonable one—what are the hallmarks of a reasonable
sentence?
The US Sentencing Commission's 2023 Guidelines Manual states
that their table attempts to come out with a fair sentence by
"coordinating the offense behavior categories with the offender
characteristic categories" (p. 2). The 2023 Guidelines Manual also
echoes my exact thoughts on sentencing: "a sentencing system
tailored to fit every conceivable wrinkle of each case would quickly
become unworkable" (p.3) and, when it comes to the
characteristics of criminal behavior, "the fact that they can occur
in multiple combinations means that the list of possible
permutations of factors is virtually endless" (p. 3). I agree with
the Sentencing Commission's (2023) position that so many of
these offense behaviors and offender characteristics are "context
specific" (p. 3).

References
Costanza, M., & Krauss, D. (2021). Forensic and legal psychology: Psychological science
applied to law.
Ghandnoosh, N., Barry, C., & Trinka, L. (2023, December 7). One in five: Racial
disparity in imprisonment - causes and remedies. The Sentencing Project. https://
[Link]/publications/one-in-five-racial-disparity-in-imprisonment-
causes-and-remedies/
United States Sentencing Commission. (2023, November). Guidelines Manual. https://
[Link]/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2023/[Link]#page421
The guidelines list 600+ pages of crimes and sentencing factors.
You first determine the offense, then the base offense level
(United States Sentencing Commission [USSC], 2023). For the base
level, take into account context specific characteristics, cross
references, and special instructions. Next, apply any adjustments
as far as victim, role, and obstruction of justice. If the defendant
has multiple counts, do these three steps for each. Apply an
adjustment for defendant's acceptance of responsibility, if there
is any. Then, determine the defendants criminal history. Next, find
the guideline range on the table that corresponds to the offense
level and criminal history category you just calculated. From there,
you can determine sentencing requirements and consider your
options, including probation, supervision conditions, fines,
restitution, or incarceration (USSC, 2023).
For example, for involuntary manslaughter, the base offense level
is 12 if there was "criminally negligent conduct" (USSC, 2023, p.
54). It is 18 if there was reckless conduct and 22 if that
conduct was the defendant being reckless with "a means of
transportation" (USSC, 2023, p. 54). For assault with intent to
commit murder or attempted murder, the base level is 33 if the
elements of the crime would have been for enough first degree
murder had the victim died, and 27 otherwise. If the assault or
attempted murder results in "permanent or life- threatening
bodily injury," (USSC, 2023, p. 50) you add 4 levels. If there was
serious injury, add 2, and if the injury is somewhere in between
there, you add 3.
This system seems pretty straightforward to me. Of course it
will not be applicable as a blanket system for everyone; as the
manual says, that would be almost impossible.
Therefore, I believe that the hallmarks of a reasonable sentence
are the factors that were discussed by the textbook, the ABA,
and accounted for in the Guidelines Manual. A reasonable sentence
will have considered the seriousness of the offense, the level of
the defendant's culpability, their prior criminal history, the
circumstances of the current offense, and sentences of others
who have committed similar crimes (Costanza & Krauss, 2021).
Again, these will not apply to everyone, which is why they are
advisory and not mandatory, but it seems that they do provide
some sense of uniformity, if used correctly.
• How does a forensic psychologist's sentencing evaluation
affect what would be considered a "reasonable sentence"?
A sentencing evaluation could help affect a reasonable cor
not) sentence because it can help identify and define
characteristics of the offender's behavior and circumstances
that could affect a judge's decision. As we have seen
multiple times, psychology and the law often intersect.
Judges cannot be expected to be experts at everything; we
cannot expect them to properly evaluate an offender, come
up with a an accurate diagnosis, and then apply it to
determining mitigating or aggravating factors. Forensic
psychologists can do this and present their findings to the
judge, so he or she can them make asappropriately informed
decision as to sentencing. A forensicpsychologist would also
be more likely to recognize malingering. If a judge was about
to deduct two sentencing levels and give a shorter sentence
because the defendant was accepting responsibility, the
forensic psychologist may have a better read on the
authenticity of that acceptance. They could also tell if a
person was trying to fake or exaggerate some sort of
mental deficit to avoid culpability.
 • After reading about the changes to the Sentencing Reform
Act (SRA), do you agree with the Supreme Court decisions to
grant more discretion to federal judges? Why or why not?
I do not agree with the Supreme Court's decision. in a perfect
world, it may work just fine. If there were no personal biases,
prejudice, racism, sexism, or any other basis on which unfair
sentences have been imposed, then yes, I would say absolutely.
Judges are educated, and they have their jobs for a reason.
Let's not micromanage them and instead give them the freedom
to make these decisions; if we can't trust them to do that,
then they shouldn't be on the bench. But I don't believe that is
necessarily reality. We wouldn't even be here discussing
sentencing guidelines if the process was not found to be biased
in the first place. For example, we have seen that prior criminal
history is a factor when determining sentences. This, then,
"exacerbates disparities for Black Americans because they are
more likely to have criminal records" (Ghandnoosh et al., 2003, p.
9). Studies on differences in ame severity andcriminal history
show that people of color were more likely thanwhite people to
be sentenced to incarceration and get longer sentences
(Ghandnoosh et al., 2023). Studies of criminal legal outcomes
have found "biased decision making in the work of police
officers, prosecutors, judges, correctional officers, parole boards,
and other members of the courtroom work group" (Ghandnoosh
et al., 2023, p. 13). Should we be able to trust or legal system to
make unbiased sentencing decisions if given the freedom to do
so? Of course. But, again, statistics show this is not reality.