About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

49 Fed. Probation 25 (1985)
Florida's Sentencing Guidelines: Progression or Regression

handle is hein.journals/fedpro49 and id is 27 raw text is: Florida's Sentencing Guidelines: Progression or Regression? BY DAVID B. GRISWOLD Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, Florida Atlantic University ENTENCING GUIDELINES went into ef- fect in October 1983 in Florida, following the national trend toward determinate sentencing.1 However, unlike previous discussions of Florida's guidelines which have been primarily descriptive,2 this article is intended to provide a critical analysis of the sentencing guidelines. Given the tremendous impact that the guidelines may have on convicted offenders and correctional resources, the creation of sentencing guidelines represents one of the most noteworthy recent changes in Florida criminal law. An early impetus for the development of sentenc- ing guidelines was the Chief Justice's 1977 appoint- ment of a committee to examine the extent and causes of sentence disparity and to explore the variety of sentence alternatives available-judicial, legislative, and administrative-to reduce un- reasonable sentence variation.' (Sentence disparity refers to unequal sentences imposed on similarly situated offenders-offenders convicted of com- parable crimes who have equivalent backgrounds such as criminal histories.)' Based upon an analysis of sentencing practices throughout the state as well as a review of existing sentencing proposals, the committee approved in principle, the exercise of judicial discretion in the sentenc- ing process. However, in order to achieve a greater degree of consistency and fairness in the sentencing process throughout the state, the Committee recommend(ed) the 'D. Griswold and M. Wiatrowski. The Emergence of Determinate Sentencing, Federal Probation. 1983. 46. p. 28. 1hereinafter Emergence: A. von Hirsch & K. Hanrahan. Determinate Penalty Systems in America: An Overview. Crime d Delin. quency. 1981. 27, p. 289. (hereinafter Determinate). 2 A. Sundberg. A Report to The Legislature: Statewide Sentencing Guidelines Im- plementation and Review. (1982) (hereinafter Statewide Sentencing): A. Sundberg. K. Plante & D. Braziel. Florida's Initial Experience with Sentencing Guidelines, Florida State University Law Review. 1983. I1. 3A Sundberg, K. Plante & K. Palmer. A Proposal for Sentence Reform in Florida, Florida's State University Law Review. 1980. 1 pp. 1-2. 4 Emergence. Statewide Sentencing. p. 4. Emergence. Determinate. 7/id a S. Schulhofer. Due Process of Sentencing. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1980. 128, p. 733; D. Crump, Determinate Sentencing: The Promises and Perils of Sentence Guidelines, Kent Law Journal 1979, 68, p. 3. 9 Statewide Sentencing, p. 4. ,e Id 11 Id 1 Emergence, Determinate. development and implementation of structured sentencing guidelines in combination with a sentence review panel that would operate within the sentence parameters of the Legislature.5. Thus, while the need for some judicial discretion was recognized, concomitantly the primary reason for developing guidelines was the reduction of sen- tence disparity, similar to positions taken elsewhere.6 There is little indication that there were other forces underlying the development of the guidelines, although other influences have been noted in more general discussions of determinate sentencing.' Likewise, court decisions played an insignificant role, for, except in the most extreme cases, the ap- pellate courts have been reluctant to intervene in sentencing matters.8 The recommendations of the sentencing commit- tee culminated in the state court administrator's of- fice obtaining a Federal grant to study the feasibility of developing and implementing sentenc- ing guidelines in a multijurisdictional setting and to examine the impact of sentencing guidelines as a means of increasing sentencing consistency between several jurisdictions in a state.9 (Although the development of the experimental sentencing guidelines has been discussed extensively previous- ly,10 it is necessary to briefly outline their develop- ment here because they provided the basis for the present guidelines.) Four circuits were selected for the development of the experimental guidelines; an advisory board consisting of the chief judge or designee from the four circuits, as well as eight ex- officio members, were responsible for overseeing the development and implementation of the experimen- tal sentencing guidelines. As noted, the primary goal of the experimental guidelines was to curtail case-by-case decisions by providing judges guidance for meting out sentences. To attain this objective, the sentencing study was designed to determine what factors were most predictive of past sentencing patterns. In contrast, the development of other guidelines has sometimes been nonpredictive or involved the prediction of recidivism.11 Although it has been suggested that Florida's experimental sentencing guidelines met

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most