English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The goals of those who called for implementation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines varied. Whereas liberals argued that structured sentencing practices would enhance fairness and hold judges accountable for their decisions, conservatives asserted that the reforms would lead to harsher penalties that eventually would deter criminal behavior. Reformers on both sides of the political spectrum, however, agreed that the changes were designed to curb discretion and reduce unwarranted disparity. Reflecting this, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual states that one of the three objectives Congress sought to achieve in enacting the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was “reasonable uniformity in sentencing by narrowing the wide disparity in sentences imposed for similar criminal offenses committed by similar offenders.” Research on the federal sentencing process reveals that the primary predictors of sentence outcomes are legally relevant factors, especially the presumptive sentence and whether the offender received either a regular downward departure or a downward departure for providing substantial assistance. However, extralegal factors also play a role.

Race, Sex, and Pretrial Detention in Federal Court: Indirect Effects and Cumulative Disadvantage