Abstract
This paper analyzes and examines the multitude of issues related to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Procedures. The author discusses issues concerning crime in general and gives an overview and evaluation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Procedures. This paper concludes with recommendations for resolving the crime problem and improving the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Procedures.

From the Paper
"Since the early 1970s, no public problem has worried Americans more persistently than crime. When individuals are asked in opinion surveys to list the problems that concern them most, the threat of crime typically comes at or near the top of the list. However, when the same people list the issues on which they will decide which candidate to vote for, crime usually comes behind half-a-dozen other subjects. The most likely explanation for why individuals are so concerned about crime is that crime extends wide and far, impacting individuals and society on an emotional, financial, and physical level. Additionally, crime intrigues academics as well as politicians because despite the vast expenditures on multiple programs and theories, there has not been any concrete, tried and proven answer regarding how to solve crime."

Tags:crime, model

From the Paper
"Sentencing Guidelines

This paper will discuss the various issues which have arisen from the adoption of sentencing guidelines in the United States. The focus of the paper will be upon the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which are the most visible of all the sentencing guidelines which have been enacted throughout the United States since the late 1970s, and have been the most criticized. The first part of the paper will describe the background of the federal sentencing Guidelines and the Guidelines themselves. The second part will discuss the effects the Guidelines have had on sentencing in the federal criminal justice system. The third part will examine the problems which have arisen since the implementation of the Guidelines and discuss the criticisms of the Guidelines."

Abstract
After a decade of contentious debate regarding the federal sentencing disparities between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, a number of significant initiatives to reform current policy have recently emerged. These include legislation introduced in Congress and a series of hearings resulting in recommendations by the United States Sentencing Commission. This paper provides a comparative analysis of the sentencing disparities with regard to crack cocaine as compared to powder cocaine. It examines the development of federal legislation creating greater criminal penalties for crack cocaine than powder cocaine and assesses recent developments, studies, and research in an effort to resolve the sentencing disparities. Finally, it offers recommendations to resolve this sentencing issue for future legislation, law enforcement agencies, and federal and local governments.

Paper Outline
Executive Summary
Introduction
Background of Cocaine
Statement of the Problem
Impact of Disparity in Sentencing
Demographic Profile of Federal Cocaine Offenders
Operational Assumptions
Statistical Analysis
Significance of the Research
Review of Related Literature
Recommendations and Hypothesis
Proposed Methodology
Proposed Data Collection
Research Findings
Results
Recommendations
Conclusion
Bibliography

From the Paper
"A possible question for policy makers is whether the career offender guideline, especially as it applies to repeat drug traffickers, clearly promotes an important purpose of sentencing. Unlike repeat violent offenders, whose incapacitation may protect the public from additional crimes by the offender, criminologists and law enforcement officials have noted that retail-level drug traffickers are readily replaced by new drug sellers so long as the demand for a drug remains high. Incapacitating a low-level drug seller prevents little, if any, drug selling; the crime is simply committed by someone else."

Tags:criminal, law, prison, smuggling, incarceration, trafficking

Abstract
This paper discusses the purpose and objectives of sentencing criminals, explaining how criminology theory has now de-emphasized retribution in formal legislation and policy in favor of functional incapacitation, mainly through incarceration and deterrence. The paper also includes information from the 2007 report of the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) to Congress regarding current issues in federal sentencing including guidelines for penalties.

Outline:
Criminal Sentencing
Contemporary Sentencing Issues Addressed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission
The Sentencing Project and National Association of Sentencing Advocates

From the Paper
"Proponents of indeterminate sentencing suggest that determinate sentencing applies inappropriately harsh sentences that cannot take into account mitigating factors to the extent necessary to achieve justice; that it undermines the ability of the criminal justice system to emphasize rehabilitation; and that restricting judicial discretion without changing prosecutorial authority produces an imbalance that favors the prosecution
"Some of the best proposals designed to incorporate both sets of concerns are variations of sentencing approaches that allow for certain elements of judicial discretion but within mandatory sentencing guidelines in the form of minimum sentences. By legislating a mandatory minimum sentence, the partial determinant strategy ensures that offenders who perpetrate specific classes of crimes never escape minimum sentences
established by legislators for those crimes while still allowing for the exercise of judicial discretion and input as appropriate in individual cases."

Tags:punishing, prevention, justice

Abstract
This paper argues that racial discrimination in the sentencing of blacks has taken away judicial discretion and created an expensive and regretful policy of imprisoning large numbers of blacks, who might have been better off given second chances. The author points out that the passage of the crack cocaine law in 1986 made black defendants much more liable to spend time in prison if they were street dealers of crack cocaine rather than if they were dealing powder cocaine, which is essentially the same drug. The paper emphasizes that crack cocaine sentences are the largest factor in racial disparity in federal sentencing. Includes charts.

From the Paper
"The cocaine sentencing debate that followed the implementation of the 1986 law has shown the depth of the impact of crack sentencing disparity. In the 1980s, crack cocaine use was covered widely by the press, due to its rapid growth in the drug market. For the first time cocaine was made available to a wider economic class because of its cheap price. By taking powder cocaine, cooking it with baking soda and water, a hard rocky substance is created that can be cracked into smaller pieces called "Crack." These "rocks" are then sold in small quantities."

Tags:powdered, rocks, penalties, mandatory, grams

Abstract
The paper provides research that supports the thesis that federal courthouse doors should remain closed to those on death row, to ensure finality is reached on all issues unlikely to succeed in the courthouse. The paper discusses how if criminal offenders have access to adequate counsel during their preliminary hearings, there is no reason to assume they require additional petitions at the federal or the state level.

From the Paper
"In the U.S. the issue of equality before the law has always been one of primary importance. This is evidenced by the fact that all citizens, even those accused of federal crimes warranting death penalty, have an opportunity to appeal with new information (Snyder, 1998). All criminals regardless of their crimes however, are provided equal opportunity and access to counsel and legal advisors, even if court appointed. There are those however, that argue federalism concerns arise under "equal protection rationale" (Snyder, 1998:2211). Under this theory, legal researchers note that forcing state representatives to provide counsel and additional appeals may decrease the federal governments "intrusion on state power" (Snyder, 1998:2211). This suggests death row inmates who have additional counsel at the state level will "have fewer habeas petitions" as those petitioning will have significant time and support to substantiate and pursue any claims they have about their case (Snyder, 1998:2212)."

Tags:preliminary, hearings, counsel, sentencing, finality

Abstract
This paper explains that the high federal prison rate, resulting in the overcrowding of federal prisons, is caused by the long, unjust and ineffective sentences required by the federal mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. The author points out that re-instituting federal parole or instituting programs similar to the programs of the state drug courts would help reconcile the issue of the ever increasing prison population and the related ever increasing cost. The paper recommends federal parole, which would allow inmates to be released from prison earlier than their imposed sentence with very specific rules to abide-by overseen by a parole officer, and required drug treatment for addicts.

From the Paper
"Drug laws were first enacted in 1914 with the Harrison Narcotics Act, which taxed narcotics and required those who dispensed drugs to obtain a license. The Harrison Narcotics Act specifically targeted the growing number of opiate addicts in the United States after the Civil War. The sale of opium and cocaine were regulated, and later the prohibition of production and importation of heroin were all included in this Act. In 1937, marijuana was characterized as a narcotic, and was taxed and legislated by the Marijuana Tax Act. The Narcotics Control Act of 1956 introduced the first law requiring mandatory prison sentences for using and selling illegal substances."

Tags:cost-benefit, recidivism, overcrowding

Abstract
The paper argues that federal courthouse doors must remain open to state prisoners to safeguard their individual liberties and to provide an independent review forum for injustices. The paper discusses how federal courts can redress the wrongs that state appellate courts have ignored such as incompetent defense attorneys, prosecutorial misconduct, or jury rigging.

From the Paper
"Federal courthouse doors must remain open to state prisoners, especially those sentenced to death. Attempts to limit judicial review of state convictions follow public sentiment. In 1996 amid the public's horror over the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building, law makers connected habeas corpus restrictions to their antiterrorism bill. These restrictions included a one year statute of limitations to file a federal habeas petition. It placed a high burden of proof on inmates in order to obtain a federal evidentiary hearing. A "gatekeeper" provision was included, consisting of a panel of three circuit judges to review second and subsequent habeas petitions which would be approved only if the petition relied on a new constitutional law or newly available evidence. The legislation requires a federal judge to defer to a state court's determination of legal questions unless there was an unreasonable application of establish federal law of the state court's decision (Weich, 2001)."

Tags:defense, attorneys, prosecution, DNA, evidence, jury

From the Paper
"The sentencing disparity between convictions for crack cocaine and powder cocaine is discriminatory toward African-Americans. Federal policy is responsible for this disparity, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and Public Law 104-38 (Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Amendment, Disapproval) being the most significant contributors. Differences in the consumption and marketing patterns of crack cocaine and powder cocaine do not justify stiffer penalties. Ironically, the inequitable sentencing of African-Americans has done little to remedy the problem of cocaine trafficking in the United States.
Government officials justify the disparity in sentencing between powder cocaine and crack cocaine based on the devastating effect that the latter drug exerts at the community level. According to testimony at a recent Congressional hearing.."

Abstract
Uses the specific example of John S. Martin, a federal judge in New York City, to explore the negative consequences mandatory-minimum sentencing laws have on the authority and performance of judges, parole officers, and probation officers.

From the Paper
"John S. Martin, who served as a federal judge in New York City for 13 years, originally intended to retire as many of his peers had, reducing his workload but staying involved in what he considered an interesting and valuable profession. Indeed, he thought that value outweighed the modest salary he would receive; he knew full well he could earn much more as a lawyer in private practice."

Tags:statutory, limits, 1984, sentencing, reform, act, commission, amber, alert, bill, guidelines