Skip to content
Version 1.0.0
Sentencing Law and Policy
Part of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Initial reflections on the USSC Booker report

By Douglas Berman

As noted before, the US Sentencing Commission’s impressive (and massive) Booker report (available here) is a bit overwhelming.  Nevertheless, having completed a quick first pass, I want to explain why the report reinforces my view that major Booker fix legislation does not seem necessary.

To begin, we must recall key reasons why the pre-Booker system cannot be the sole metric for judging the post-Booker world.  As I explained in this Legal Affairs debate with Frank Bowman:

[There are] two fundamental reasons why pre-Booker realities cannot nor should not be our gold standard for assessing the current state of federal sentencing: (1) the pre-Booker sentencing system, according to the Supreme Court, violated defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights, and (2) the pre-Booker sentencing system, according to nearly all observers, distinguished itself by virtue of its overall complexity, rigidity and harshness.  Consequently, because the pre-Booker sentencing system was both unconstitutional and unsound, evidence of “decreased compliance” with the guidelines perhaps should be a cause for celebration and not concern.

With this important backdrop, three findings from the report especially caught my attention:

  • “Despite the increase in the rate of imposition below-range sentences in the post-Booker era, the average length of sentences imposed actually has increased in the caseload taken as a whole.”  USSC Report at p. 69.
  • “In general, sentence reductions in the post-Booker era tend to be distributed more heavily among the smaller reductions than among the large ones.”  USSC Report at p. 63.
  • It appears that, generally speaking, post-Booker departures and variances are going to offenders who perhaps most merit a small break from the guidelines (e.g., first offenders and those with overstated criminal histories; offenders with small roles in offenses; offenders with significant family ties and responsibilities).

Add all this up, and I come to the basic conclusion that federal judges are, generally speaking, using their new post-Booker discretion quite cautiously and wisely.  As the old proverb goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”  I see little evidence in the USSC’s report of federal sentencing being broken (or at least being broken in new ways).

Of course, federal sentencing has arguably become a bit more complex and harsh after Booker, even as it has become slightly less rigid.  I would favor reforms that would ease the complexity and harshness of the current system (though these reforms could and should come from the USSC after further study).  Disconcertingly, the “minimum guideline system” that the Justice Department fancies would increase the rigidity and the harshness of federal sentencing — while also, of course, raising new constitutional and practical questions that would also increase complexity.

Some recent Booker fix posts: