Critical Analysis of Acquitted Conduct Sentencing in the U.S.: "Kafka-esque," "Repugnant," "Uniquely Malevolent" and "Pernicious"?

Yalincak, Orhun hakan (2014): Critical Analysis of Acquitted Conduct Sentencing in the U.S.: "Kafka-esque," "Repugnant," "Uniquely Malevolent" and "Pernicious"? Published in: Santa Clara Law Review , Vol. 54, No. 3 (21 August 2014): pp. 675-722.

Abstract

In federal court and many state courts across the United States, once a defendant is convicted, judges are routinely permitted, and in fact, sometimes required to increase a defendant’s sentence based on relevant conduct, of which he was acquitted at trial, or conduct for which he was never charged. This article highlights the issues that arise from the use of acquitted conduct sentencing under the now advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The use of acquitted conduct under the relevant conduct provisions of the Guidelines has resulted in substantially longer prison sentences with a disparate impact on racial and ethnic minorities. Acquitted conduct sentencing treats the offense admitted by a defendant, or proven to a judge or jury’s satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt as only the starting point in calculating a defendant’s sentence; the modified real offense approach, which incorporates relevant conduct and mandates consideration of acquitted conduct, determines the end sentence. This article concludes that use of acquitted conduct should be prohibited both on constitutional and normative grounds. While it is outside the scope of this article to offer a comprehensive solution or alternative to the use of acquitted conduct at sentencing, the key observation is that since the common thread linking the constitutional and normative issues arise from the fragmented nature of U.S. sentencing policy, the solution must start with re-conceptualizing the theories underlying sentencing in the United States.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: criminal justice, white collar, retributive justice, utilitarian theory of punishment, economics, crime and punishment, sentencing, acquitted conduct, relevant conduct, sentencing guidelines, hakan yalincak
• Subjects: K - Law and Economics > K2 - Regulation and Business Law; K - Law and Economics > K4 - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior; K - Law and Economics > K4 - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior > K42 - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law

References

Texts • J. Archbold, ‘Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases’ 44 (15th ed. 1862).

• S. Armstrong, ‘Bureaucracy, Private Prisons, and the Future of Penal Reform’ (2003) 7 Buff. Crim.L.Rev. 275.

• A. Ashworth, ‘Sentencing and Criminal Justice’ (5th edn., Cambridge University Press, 2010).

• A. von Hirsch and A. Ashworth, ‘Proportionate Sentencing: Exploring the Principles’ (Oxford, OUP, 2005).

• A. von Hirsch, ‘Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishments’ (Hill & Wang, 1976).

• A. Ashworth, ‘Sentencing and Criminal Justice’ (3rd edn., Butterworths, London, 2000).

• C.K.B. Barton, ‘Getting Even: Revenge As a Form of Justice’ (Open Court Pub., 1999).

• J. Bentham, ‘Punishment and Deterrence,’ in A. von Hirsch, A. Ashworth, and JV Roberts (eds) Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2009).

• H. J. Berman, ‘Law and Revolution II, The Impact of the Protestant Reformation on the Western Legal Tradition’ (Harvard University Press, 2003).

• J. Bishop, ‘Law of Criminal Procedure’ (2d ed. 1872).

• W. Blackstone, ‘Commentaries on the laws of England, Book IV’ (Legal Classics Library Ed., 1983).

• J. Braithwaite and P. Pettit, ‘Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Criminal Justice’ (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992).

• A.E. Bottoms and R. Brownsword, ‘Incapacitation and Vivid Danger,’ in A. von Hirsch, A. Ashworth, and JV Roberts (eds) Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2009).

• A. De Tocqueville, ‘Democracy in America’ (vintage ed. 1945).

• R.A. Duff, ‘Punishment, Retribution and Communication,’ in A. von Hirsch, A. Ashworth, and JV Roberts (eds) Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2009).

• A.W. Dzur, ‘Punishment, Participatory Democracy, and the Jury’ (Oxford, OUP 2012).

• M. Foucault, ‘Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison’ (Alan Sheridan (trans), Vintage Books, 2nd ed. 1995).

• M. E. Frankel, ‘Criminal Sentences: Law Without Order’ (Hill & Wang Pub., 1972).

• R.S. Frase, ‘Just Sentencing: Principle and Procedures for a Workable System’ (Oxford, OUP 2013).

• T. Greene, ‘The Language of the Constitution: A Sourcebook and Guide to the Ideas, Terms, and Vocabulary Used by the Framers of the United States Constitution’ (Greenwood Press, 1991).

• H.L.A. Hart, ‘Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law’ (Oxford, OUP 1968).

• H.L.A. Hart, ‘Prolegomenon to the Principles of Punishment’, in J. Gardner, Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law (Oxford, OUP 2008).

• N. MacCormick and D. Garland, ‘Sovereign States and Vengeful Victims’, in A. Ashworth and M. Wasik (eds.), Fundamentals of Sentencing Theory (Oxford, OUP 1998).

• G. MacKenzie, ‘How Judges Sentence’ (The Federation Press, Sydney, Australia 2005).

• M. Moore, ‘The Moral Worth of Retribution’, in A. von Hirsch, A. Ashworth, and JV Roberts (eds) Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2009).

• R.A. Posner, ‘Not A Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency’ (Oxford, OUP 2006).

• J. Roberts and A. von Hirsch, ‘Legislating the Purpose and Principles of Sentencing’ in J. Roberts and D. Cole (eds), Making Sense of Sentencing (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1999).

• R. Singer, ‘Just Deserts’ (Ballinger Pub. Co., 1979).

• K. Stith & J. Cabranes, ‘Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal Courts’ (1998).

• R. Tomasic and I. Dobinson, ‘The Failure of Imprisonment: An Australian Perspective’ (Sydney, Australia, The Law Foundation of New South Wales, 1979).

• J.Q. Wilson, ‘Thinking About Crime’ (Basic, 1975).

• G.E. Woodbine (ed), and S.E. Thorne (trans), ‘Bracton on The Laws and Customs of England’ (1968).

• A. von Hirsch, A. Ashworth, and J.V. Roberts, (eds), ‘Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy’ (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2009).

Journal Articles

• L. Adelman, J. Dietrich, ‘Rita, District Court Discretion, and Fairness in Federal Sentencing’ (2007) 85 Denv. U. L. Rev. 1.

• L. Alexander, ‘Retributivism and the Inadvertent Punishment of the Innocent’ (1983) 2(2) Law and Philosophy 233.

• A.R. Amar, ‘The Bill of Rights as a Constitution’ (1991) 100 Yale L.J. 1131.

• A. Ashworth, ‘Criminal Justice and Deserved Sentences’ (1989) Crim. L. Rev. 340.

• D.A. Berman, ‘Distinguishing Offense Conduct and Offender Characteristics in Modern Sentencing Reforms’ (2005) 58 Stan. L. Rev. 277.

• D. Berman, ‘Reconceptualizing Sentencing’ (2005) U. Chi. Legal. F. 1.

• E.K. Beutler, ‘A Look at the Use of Acquitted Conduct in Sentencing’ (1998) 88 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 809.

• J.J. Bilsborrow, ‘Sentencing Acquitted Conduct to the Post-Booker Dustbin’ (2007) 49 Wm. Mary L. Rev. 289.

• R. Blecker, ‘Haven or Hell? Inside Lorton Central Prison: Experiences of Punishment Justified’ (1990) 42 Stan.L.Rev. 1149.

• S. Breyer, ‘The Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the Key Compromises Upon Which They Rest’ (1988) 17 Hofstra L. Rev. 1.

• C.A. Brook, ‘Racial Disparity Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines’ (2008) 35(1) ABA Journal of Litigation 15.

• B.S. Byrd, ‘Kant’s Theory of Punishment: Deterrence in Its Threat, Retribution in Its Execution’ (1989) 8(2) Law and Philosophy 151.

• ‘Criminal Law-Federal Sentencing-Ninth Circuit Affirms 262-Month Sentence Based on Uncharged Murder’ (2012) 125 Harv. L. Rev. 1860.

• M. T. Doerr, ‘Not Guilty? Go to Jail. The Unconstitutionality of Acquitted-Conduct Sentencing’ (2009) 41 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 235.

• D.W. Dowd, ‘The Sentencing Controversy: Punishment & Policy in the War Against Drugs’ (1995) 40 Vill.L.Rev. 301.

• F. Farkish, ‘Docking the Tail that Wags the Dog: Why Congress Should Abolish the Use of Acquitted Conduct at Sentencing And How Courts Should Treat Acquitted Conduct After United States v. Booker’ (2007) 20 Regent University Law Review 101.

• K. R. Feingberg, ‘The Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the Underlying Purposes of Sentencing’ (1991) 3 Fed. Sent. Rptr. 326.

• D.J. Freed and M. Miller, ‘Taking Purposes Seriously: The Neglected Requirement of Guideline Sentencing’ (1991) 3 Fed. Sent. Rptr. 295.

• N. Gertner, ‘Circumventing Juries, Justice: Lessons from Criminal Trials and Sentencing’ (1999) 32 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 419.

• N. Gertner, ‘Juries and Originalism: Giving “Intelligible Content” to the Right to a Jury Trial’ (2010) 100 J. Crim L. & Criminology 691.

• N. Gertner, ‘Sentencing Reform: When Everyone Behaves Badly’ (2005) 57 Me. L. Rev. 569.

• A.H. Goldman, ‘The Paradox of Punishment,’ (1979) 9 Philosophy & Public Affairs 42.

• M. Haist, ‘Deterrence in a Sea of “Just Deserts’: Are Utilitarian Goals Achievable In A World of “Limiting Retributivism”?’ (2009) 99(3) Journal of Law & Criminology 789.

• D.M. Hansen, ‘The Absentee Post-Conviction Constitutional Safeguards – People v. Zowaski’ (2012) 23(3) Tour L. Rev. 563.

• C.B. Hessick, and F.A. Hessick, ‘Recognizing Constitutional Rights at Sentencing’ (2011) 99(47) Cal.L.Rev. 47.

• P.J Hofer, and M.H. Allenbaugh, ‘The Reason Behind the Rules: Finding and Using the Philosophy of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines’ (2003) 40 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 19.

• B.L. Johnson, ‘If At First You Don’t Succeed-Abolishing the Use of Acquitted Conduct in Guideline Sentencing’ (1996) 75 N.C.L. Rev. 153.

• E.E. Joh, ‘If It Suffices to Accuse: United States v. Watts and the Reassessment of Acquittals’ (1999) 74 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 887.

• R.H. Joost, ‘Federal Criminal Code Reform: Is It Possible’ (1997) 1 Buff. Crim. L. Rev. 195.

• E. Lear, Double Jeopardy, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and the Subsequent-Prosecution Dilemma, (1994) 60 Brook. L. Rev. 725.

• G. Leonard and C. Dieter, ‘Punishment Without Conviction: Controlling the Use of Unconvicted Conduct in Federal Sentencing’ (2012) 17 Berkley J. Crim. L. 260.

• E. Ngov, ‘Judicial Nullification of Juries: Use of Acquitted Conduct at Sentencing’ (2009) 76 Tenn. L. Rev. 235.

• A.J. Rappaport, ‘Unprincipled Punishment: the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s Troubling Silence about the Purposes of Punishment’ (2003) 6 Buff. Crim. L. Rev. 1043.

• A.J. Rappaport, ‘Rationalizing the Commission: The Philosophical Premises of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines’ (2003) 52 Emory L.J. 557.

• K. R. Reitz, ‘Sentencing Facts: Travesties of Real-Offense Sentencing’ (1993) 45 Stan. L. Rev. 523.

• P. H. Robinson, ‘A Sentencing System for the 21st Century?’ (1987) 66 Tex. L. Rev. 1.

• R. A. Semones, ‘A Parade of Horribles: Uncharged Relevant Conduct, the Federal Prosecutorial Loophole, Tails Wagging Dogs in Federal Sentencing Law, and United States v. Fitch’ (2013) 46 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 313.

• M. Sterback, ‘Getting Time for an Acquitted Crime: The Unconstitutional Use of Acquitted Conduct at Sentencing And New York’s Call for Change’ (2011) 26 Touro L. Rev. 1223.

• S. Thaxton, ‘Determining Reasonableness Without A Reason? Federal Appellate Review Post-Rita v United States’ (2008) 75 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1885.

• M. Thorburn and A. Manson, ‘Review Essay, The Sentencing Theory Debate: Convergence in Outcomes, Divergence in Reasoning’ (2007) 10(2) New Crim.L.Rev. 278.

• E. Tirschwell and M. Eisenkraft, ‘Repugnant and Malevolent: The Use of Acquitted Conduct in Federal Sentencing’ New York Law Journal 9th September, 2009.

• M. Tonry, ‘Purposes and Functions of Sentencing’ (2006) 34 Crime & Just. 1.

• M. Tonry, ‘Real Offense Sentencing: The Model Sentencing And Corrections Act’ (1981) 72(4) J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1550.

• A. von Hirsch, ‘Proportionality in the Philosophy of Punishment’, in M. Tonry (ed), (1992) 16 Crime and Justice 55.

• A. von Hirsch, ‘Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Do They Provide Principled Guidance” (1989) 27 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 367.