Upload
lane-gailey
View
219
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Chapter 14Sentencing and Appeals
History of Sentencing in the U.S. old English common law punished felonies with the
death penalty old English common law punished misdemeanors with
public floggings such penalties were brought to the American colonies Bill of Rights (Eighth Amendment) prohibited cruel and
unusual punishment Benjamin Rush: “house of reform” New York adopted a modified form of indeterminate
sentencing
Criminal Punishment
George P. Fletcher: a violation of the rule results in the imposition of punishment by a court
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez concern that a law may be considered criminal
punishment
Purposes of Punishment retribution
imposes punishment based on just deserts offenders should receive the punishment that they deserve
based on the seriousness of their criminal acts deterrence
specific deterrence imposes punishment to deter or discourage a defendant from committing a crime in the future
general deterrence punishes an offender as an example to deter others from violating the law
rehabilitation intended to reform the offender and to transform him/her into
a law-abiding and productive member of society appeals to the idealistic notion that people are essentially good
and can transform their lives when encouraged and given support
Purposes (cont.) incapacitation
the removal of offenders from society to prevent them from continuing to menace others
selective incapacitation singles out offenders who have committed certain serious offenses for lengthy incarceration
restoration stresses the harm caused to victims of crime requires offenders to engage in financial restitution and
community service to compensate the victim and the community and to “make them whole once again”
Type of Punishment imprisonment fines probation intermediate sanctions death
Approaches to Sentencing
determinate sentences mandatory minimum sentences intermediate sentences presumptive sentencing guidelines
Judicial Sentencing Process
often filed by a probation officer contains information regarding the defendant,
including his/her criminal record and financial condition and other circumstances that may influence the defendant’s future behavior
addresses aggravating and mitigating circumstances
sentencing hearings right of allocution consecutive vs. concurrent sentences clemency vs. pardon
Sentencing Guidelines 1984 Sentencing Reform Act sentences under the federal guidelines are based on a
complicated formula that reflects the seriousness and characteristics of the offense and the criminal history of the offender
judges employ a sentencing grid and must sentence an offender within the narrow range where the offender’s criminal offense and criminal history intersect
judges are required to document the reasons for criminal sentences and are obligated to provide a specific reason for an upward or downward departure from the sentenced authorized by the guidelines
Sentencing Guidelines (cont.) federal guidelines are much more complicated than most state
guidelines unconstitutional to enhance a sentence based on facts found
to exist by the judge by a preponderance of the evidence rather than by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt
federal and state sentencing guidelines are advisory, not mandatory
Determinate Sentences controversy over the Anti–Drug Abuse Act of
1986 criticisms of determinate sentences
inflexibility plea bargaining increase in prison population disparate effects
Hutto v. Davis
Methods of Punishment most courts have not limited cruel and unusual
punishment to acts condemned at the time of passage of the Eighth Amendment but have viewed it as an evolving concept
Furman v. Georgia controversies over capital punishment and its
various methods of implementation
Capital Punishment Furman v. Georgia
“punishment must not be excessive” punishment must “fit the crime” punishment is to be imposed in an “evenhanded,
nonselective, and nonarbitrary” manner Woodson v. North Carolina Gregg v. Georgia
aggravating circumstances mitigating circumstances
weighing states vs. nonweighing states
Eighth Amendment and Sentences for a Term of Years the length of a criminal sentence is the
province of elected state legislators judicial intervention to review the
“proportionality” of a sentence for a term of years should be “extremely rare” and should be limited to criminal sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the seriousness of the offense
three strikes laws
Equal Protection
it is unconstitutional for a judge to base a sentence on a defendant’s race, gender, ethnicity, or nationality
a sentence should be based on defendant’s act rather than on a defendant’s identity
a defendant must demonstrate both a discriminatory impact and a discriminatory intent
Criminal Appeals no due process right to appeal courts routinely express a belief in the need for
appeals Griffin v. Illinois final judgement rule interlocutory appeals plain error exception harmless error standard Chapman v. United States automatic reversal rule retroactivity
Habeas Corups collateral remedies a civil lawsuit in which the defendant (now called the
petitioner or plaintiff) asks the court for a writ on the grounds that he/she is being unlawfully detained
William Blackstone: habeas corpus is “the most celebrated writ in the English law”
Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the Public Safety may require it”
Fay v. Noia Justice Powell, Schneckloth v. Bustamonte: the costs of
federal courts engaging in active habeas corpus review Stone v. Powell
Requirements for Bringing a Habeas Corpus Claim
plaintiff must allege a violation of a federal constitutional right or a violation of federal law
the individual on whose behalf the petition is filed must be in custody
AEDPA: a state prisoner file a petition in federal district court “within a year of the final State court review of the conviction and sentence . . . or the expiration of the time for seeking such review”
the plaintiff must exhaust state remedies before filing a petition for habeas corpus
Requirements for Habeas Corpus (cont.)
whether the state court decision on the law and the facts is reasonable
a district court decides the case based on the written trial record and on the written judgments of the state appellate courts
the petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the constitutional error had a substantial and injurious impact or influence on the jury’s guilty verdict
the individual filing a petition for habeas corpus may not rely on a new rule of law announced by the Supreme Court following the exhaustion of his or her direct state appeals
Requirements for Habeas Corpus (cont.)
a federal court will not hear a habeas corpus petition in those instances in which a defendant failed follow state procedures and did not raise an objection at trial and exhaust state appeals
the successive petition doctrine prohibits a second petition that raises a claim that has been presented in a prior habeas petition
the abuse of writ doctrine prohibits raising an issue that a defendant did not raise in the first petition, but could have raised