Unprincipled Punishment: The U.S. Sentencing Commission's Troubling Silence about the Purposes of Punishment
Author(s) -
Aaron J. Rappaport
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
buffalo criminal law review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1930-7950
pISSN - 1093-3514
DOI - 10.1525/nclr.2003.6.2.1043
Subject(s) - punishment (psychology) , retributive justice , sentencing guidelines , commission , reform act , political science , criticism , reform movement , law , rhetoric , utilitarianism , law and economics , criminology , politics , sociology , psychology , economic justice , sentence , social psychology , philosophy , linguistics
1044 I. The Modern Sentencing Reform Movement 1049 A. The Goals of Sentencing Reform 1049 B. The Sentencing Reform Act 1054 II. Sentencing Reform and the Purposes of Punishment 1057 A. Moral Principle and the Nature of Sentencing Purposes 1060 1. Utilitarianism 1061 2. Retribution 1063 B. The Inseparability of Policy Goals and Punishment Purposes 1065 C. Conflicts among Punishment Purposes 1071 III. The Institution of Principle 1078 A. The Rhetoric of the Empirical Approach 1079 B. The Empirical Approach Reconsidered 1085 IV. The Need for a Public Statement of Purposes 1092 A. Sentencing Disparity Revisited 1095 B. Sentencing Severity Revisited 1099 1. Disciplining the Commission 1099 2. Principles and Politics 1102 V. Potential Criticism 1108 A. Incompletely Theorized Agreements 1108 B. The “Common Law” Approach 1113
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom