Divergent Paths to Federal and Pennsylvania Sentencing Guideline Reforms

Vol. 51 No. 4

By

John H. Kramer is professor of sociology and crime, law, and justice at The Pennsylvania State University. He served as executive director of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing from 1979–98 and staff director of the U.S. Sentencing Commission from 1996–98.

When I considered writing this article, I was challenged to discuss why it is that the Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines are so well received by the judges of Pennsylvania compared to federal judges’ severe criticism of the federal guidelines. My roles as executive director of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) from 1979–98 and as staff director for the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) from 1996–98 give me considerable experiences with both guideline systems. While I served both commissions, I did so at very different times in their history, and, of course, federal and state criminal justice systems are quite different in many respects. For example, the criminal jurisdiction generally brings different types of offenders before the court and the federal courts have more staff resources to devote to each case.

Premium Content for:

  • ABA Lawyers Conference Members
  • ABA Appellate Judges Conference Members
  • ABA National Conference of the Administrative Law Judiciary Members
  • ABA National Conference of State Trial Judges Members
  • ABA Judicial Division Members
  • ABA National Conference of Federal Trial Judges Members
  • ABA National Conference of Specialized Court Judges Members
Join Now

Already a member? Log In


Advertisement

  • About The Judges' Journal

  • More Information

  • Contact Us