Federal and State Sentencing Essay

In 1998 the District of Columbia Sentencing and Criminal Code Revision charge was charged with developing a comprehensive structured sentencing system for the District. The committal concluded that the District could benefit from a comprehensive structured sentencing system. Next, the fit embarks the difficult task of creating workable sentencing guidelines for felonies. As Washington, DC follows the lead of early(a) jurisdictions as well as an earlier effort in the District, the focusing developed two grids one for drug cases and one for all some other cases in the direction of the dominant factors in sentencing the offense of conviction and the twist history of the offender.The electric charge too established standards for departing from the recommended prison ranges in pyrotechnic cases, rules for imposing concurrent or consecutive sentences, along with adjustments and exceptions to sentencing. Together, the grids, standards, rules, adjustments and exceptions form the u npaid Sentencing Guidelines for the District of Columbia. (ACS, 2012-pg.9) Sentencing for a felony conviction is commonly heard by the sound out/court in a separate hearing which is held several eld or weeks after the verdict. There is so many types of offenders with varied backgrounds and unlawful histories that the act of sentencing them is one of the most stressful and complex decisions made by judges. (Champion, D., Hartley, R. & Rabe, Gary. 2008, 2002).At the felony sentencing hearing, the prosecution makes a recommendation of punishment, and the defendant usually argues for leniency. The Supreme Courts decisions that struck down state and national criminal sentencing guidelines have caused a cascade of prediction of disaster. Shephard shows in his ask how sentencing guidelines have actually increased crime and not decreased crime. It has also been shown that in a landmark Blakely and Booker decisions, the Supreme Court had gear up that Washington State and federa l sentencing system violated the Sixth Amendment and has identify nine other states whose regimes may also be unconstitutional (ACS, 2012-pg.9). round guidelines were deemed invalid because they allowed the judge to determine factual issues during the sentencing that should have been decided by a jury.ReferencesACS, (2012). Voluntary Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Retrieved, Feb. 22, 2015, from DC Sentencing and Criminal Code Revision Commission (Formerly Office of Advisory Commission on Sentencing) http//acs.dc.gov/acs/frames.asp?doc=/acs/lib/acs/pdf/2012_Voluntary_Sentencing_Guidelines_Manual.pdf Champion, D., Hartley, R. & Rabe, Gary, (2008, 2002). Sentencing and Appeals Chapter hug drug p.405, Criminal Courts Structure, Process, and Issues -Second Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458