Judicial discretion enables judges to make sentencing decisions within specific statutory limits. As with prosecutorial discretion, judicial discretion is built into the system as a means of enabling flexibility, accounting for special circumstances and rapidly shifting norms, and also increasing efficiency. Although judicial discretion has been widely and voraciously accused of fostering racial disparities, it has also been presented as the means to reduce sentencing disparities and promote justice (Bunin, 2009).
Federal sentencing guidelines provide the structure and limitations of judicial discretion. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 followed on the heels of similar legislation, and heavily restricted judicial discretion in federal sentencing. The pendulum swung in 2005, when the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220. In United Stats v. Booker, the court ruled that federal sentencing guidelines are to be guidelines only and not mandatory. The post-Booker environment enables judges to account for situational and personal variables and to determine unique sentencing in each case. Seriousness and nature of the offence, history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentencing available, and the more existential function of sentencing in the particular case are all potential considerations for the judge (Bogan, 2012). With regards to the existential purpose of sentencing, there are symbolic purposes, purposes related to protection of the public,...
specific needs like mental health care. The judge remains confined to statutory limits related to each offence, in spite of the additional discretion allowed by United States v. Booker. Guideline sentencing pertains to white collar crimes including fraud as well as for drug and violent crimes.
There have been dozens of subsequent Supreme Court cases since Booker that address guideline sentencing. Like the Booker decision, many subsequent decisions rested on interpretations of Sixth Amendment rights to jury trial and the implied role of the judge therein. Moreover, the terms "reasonableness" and "unreasonableness" appear frequently in the decisions related to guideline sentencing. For example, in Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), Justice Breyer wrote the majority 8-1 opinion holding that "courts of appeals may apply presumption of reasonableness when reviewing a sentence imposed within the sentencing guideline range," (Office of General Counsel United States Sentencing Commission, 2010). The Rita decision affirmed the Booker decision in that judges are offered significant leeway within guideline sentences, without rendering guidelines irrelevant. Guidelines are exactly that, guidelines, within which judges can take into account extenuating circumstances and the efficacy of sentencing in any particular case.
The recent trend toward increased judicial discretion…
