Although the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 advocated the use of “least restrictive alternatives,” the U.S. Sentencing Commission has devised guidelines that authorize prison for all felony convictions. Nonincarcerative sentences are available for low-level offenders, but research has shown that the use of probation and other alternative sanctions has declined since the full-scale adoption of the guidelines in 1989. Applying criteria for imposing sentences of imprisonment adopted by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency to U.S. Sentencing Commission data from 1992 and 1993, we show that a large number of cases in the federal caseload that were considered ineligible for nonincarcerative sanctions may merit “a second look” and be considered for alternative sentences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ashworth, Andrew
. 1992. “The New English Sentencing System.”U.C. Davis Law Review25:755-771.
2.
Beck, James
and Elaine Wolf. 1991. “Departures for Substantial Assistance Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.” Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology, November, San Francisco, CA.
Edna McConnell Clark Foundation
. 1993. Americans Behind Bars. New York: Author.
5.
Freed, Daniel J.1992. “Federal Sentencing in the Wake of Guidelines: Unacceptable Limits on the Discretion of Sentencers.”The Yale Law Journal101:1681-1754.
6.
Freed, Daniel J.
and Marc Miller. 1993. “Editors' Observations.”Federal Sentencing Reporter5:187-190.
7.
Harer, Miles D.1994. “Do Guideline Sentences for Low Risk Drug Traffickers Achieve Their Stated Purposes?”Federal Sentencing Reporter7:22-25.
8.
Harland, Alan T.1993. “Some Research and Policy Development Implications: Defining a Continuum of Sanctions.”Perspectives17:6-15.
Joutsen, Matti
and Norman Bishop. 1994. “Noncustodial Sanctions in Europe: Regional Overview.” Pp. 279-292 in Alternatives to Imprisonment in Comparative Perspective, edited by U. Zvekic. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
11.
Joutsen, Matti
and Ugliješa Zvekić. 1994. “Noncustodial Sanctions: Comparative Overview.” Pp. 1-44 in Alternatives to Imprisonment in Comparative Perspective, edited by U. Zvekić. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
12.
Klein-Saffron, Jody
. 1992. “The Development of Intermediate Punishments at the Federal Level.” Pp. 261-280 in Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, edited by J. Byrne, A. J. Lurigio, and J. Petersilia. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mauer, Marc
. 1994. Americans Behind Bars: The International Use of Incarceration, 1992-1993. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
15.
McDonald, Douglas C.
and Kenneth Carlson. 1993. Sentencing in the Federal Courts: Does Race Matter?Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
16.
Morris, Norval
and Michael Tonry. 1990. Between Prison and Probation. New York: Oxford University Press.
17.
National Council on Crime and Delinquency
. 1992 April. Criminal Justice Sentencing Policy Statement. San Francisco, CA: Author.
18.
Noonan, John T.1993. “Comment.”Federal Sentencing Reporter5:190-191.
19.
Smith, Alexander B.
and Harriett Pollack. 1994. “Looking Back: Senior Judges of the Second Circuit Reflect on the Criminal Justice System.”Criminal Law Bulletin30:252-261.
20.
Tonry, Michael
. 1992. “Salvaging the Sentencing Guidelines in Seven Easy Steps.”Federal Sentencing Reporter4:355-359.
21.
U.S. General Accounting Office
. 1994, January. Sentencing: Intermediate Sanctions in the Federal Criminal Justice System. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
22.
U.S. Sentencing Commission
. 1991a. Special Report to the Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System. Washington, DC: Author.
23.
U.S. Sentencing Commission
. 1991b. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines: A Report on the Operation of the Guidelines System and Short-Term Impacts on Disparity in Sentencing, Use of Incarceration, and Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
24.
U.S. Sentencing Commission
. 1993, November 1. United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual. Washington, DC: Author.
25.
U.S. Sentencing Commission
. 1994a. Monitoring of Federal Criminal Sentences, 1987-1992; 1991-92 DATA Computer File; 2nd ICPSR version. Washington DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission, producer. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, distributor.
26.
U.S. Sentencing Commission
. 1994b. Monitoring of Federal Criminal Sentences, 1987-1993; 1992-93 DATA Computer File; ICPSR version. Washington DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission, producer. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, distributor.
27.
Wasik, Martin
and Andrew von Hirsch. 1988. “Non-Custodial Penalties and the Principles of Desert.”Criminal Law Review:555-572.
28.
Wilkins, William W.1992. “Response to Judge Heaney.”American Criminal Law Review29:833.
