Regulating Local Variations in Federal Sentencing
Stanford Law Review Vol. 58, October 2005
Though in theory federal criminal law applies uniformly in all places, in practice federal charging, plea bargaining, and sentencing practices vary widely from place to place. Sentencing disparities are good when they reflect local knowledge about local crime problems and concerns. They are bad when they spring from bias, local lawyers' and judges' hostility to national policy choices or perhaps when they reflect disagreement with federal strategies. This Article critiques fast-track programs, which award huge discounts in immigration and drug cases along the southwest border, as bad variation that undermines the ideal of national uniformity. It then considers the wide local variations in sentencing cooperating defendants. Procedural and substantive policies within the Department of Justice and more specific sentencing guidelines can bring greater equality and consistency to these decisions.
Date of Authorship for this Version
criminal procedure, federal sentencing, sentencing guidelines, fast-track, structured sentencing, disparity, uniformity, equality
Bibas, Stephanos, "Regulating Local Variations in Federal Sentencing" (2005). Scholarship at Penn Law. 79.