The evolution of sentencing guidelines in Minnesota and England and Wales
Sentencing guidelines were an exclusively American enterprise until recently. Since 2004, however, other countries have joined in. Contrasting approaches are exemplified by systems developed by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission and the Sentencing Council of England and Wales. Minnesota’...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Published: |
University of Chicago Press
2019
|
| _version_ | 1797066153688825856 |
|---|---|
| author | Roberts, J |
| author_facet | Roberts, J |
| author_sort | Roberts, J |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Sentencing guidelines were an exclusively American enterprise until recently. Since 2004, however, other countries have joined in. Contrasting approaches are exemplified by systems developed by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission and the Sentencing Council of England and Wales. Minnesota’s guidelines are set out in grids that categorize cases by offense and criminal history. Each cell sets out ranges of sentences that are presumed to be appropriate. The English guidelines are step-by-step decision trees, one for each principal offense category. Each jurisdiction created an approach that fits its sentencing environment. The Minnesota grids are more restrictive and generate high levels of judicial conformity and consistency. The English guidelines allow greater discretion, possibly at the cost of consistency. However, the English approach provides ampler guidance on use of different dispositions, sentencing of multiple crimes, appropriate reductions to reflect guilty pleas, and other subjects. Neither the Minnesota Commission nor the English Council has been particularly self-critical. Minnesota’s main grid has changed little since 1980. England’s guidelines have evolved considerably, but the council has ignored calls to play a more active role in controlling the use of custody and hence the size of the prison population. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T21:38:20Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:47090d32-3927-496b-8051-a420fa5b0c8a |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T21:38:20Z |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publisher | University of Chicago Press |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:47090d32-3927-496b-8051-a420fa5b0c8a2022-03-26T15:17:33ZThe evolution of sentencing guidelines in Minnesota and England and WalesJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:47090d32-3927-496b-8051-a420fa5b0c8aSymplectic Elements at OxfordUniversity of Chicago Press2019Roberts, JSentencing guidelines were an exclusively American enterprise until recently. Since 2004, however, other countries have joined in. Contrasting approaches are exemplified by systems developed by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission and the Sentencing Council of England and Wales. Minnesota’s guidelines are set out in grids that categorize cases by offense and criminal history. Each cell sets out ranges of sentences that are presumed to be appropriate. The English guidelines are step-by-step decision trees, one for each principal offense category. Each jurisdiction created an approach that fits its sentencing environment. The Minnesota grids are more restrictive and generate high levels of judicial conformity and consistency. The English guidelines allow greater discretion, possibly at the cost of consistency. However, the English approach provides ampler guidance on use of different dispositions, sentencing of multiple crimes, appropriate reductions to reflect guilty pleas, and other subjects. Neither the Minnesota Commission nor the English Council has been particularly self-critical. Minnesota’s main grid has changed little since 1980. England’s guidelines have evolved considerably, but the council has ignored calls to play a more active role in controlling the use of custody and hence the size of the prison population. |
| spellingShingle | Roberts, J The evolution of sentencing guidelines in Minnesota and England and Wales |
| title | The evolution of sentencing guidelines in Minnesota and England and Wales |
| title_full | The evolution of sentencing guidelines in Minnesota and England and Wales |
| title_fullStr | The evolution of sentencing guidelines in Minnesota and England and Wales |
| title_full_unstemmed | The evolution of sentencing guidelines in Minnesota and England and Wales |
| title_short | The evolution of sentencing guidelines in Minnesota and England and Wales |
| title_sort | evolution of sentencing guidelines in minnesota and england and wales |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT robertsj theevolutionofsentencingguidelinesinminnesotaandenglandandwales AT robertsj evolutionofsentencingguidelinesinminnesotaandenglandandwales |