Judge Jack B. Weinstein approached every sentencing with his trademark compassion and intellectual rigor. This was nowhere more evident than in two of the most challenging sentencing contexts: child pornography and terrorism. This essay considers Judge Weinstein’s refusal to sentence based on assumptions about defendants and their conduct, and his insistence on empirical data, expert evaluations, and asking the hardest questions about motivation and future behavior before imposing sentence. It focuses on Judge Weinstein’s sentencing practices in terrorism and child pornography cases, the two areas in which Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission have most limited judicial discretion in sentencing. It shows that despite those limits, Judge Weinstein sought always to impose individualized sentences based on the actual person before him. He believed every person—no matter their worst act—could be salvaged, and deserved happiness.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
February 2021
Research Article|
February 01 2021
Sentencing with Love, Not Hate
Deirdre D. von Dornum
Deirdre D. von Dornum
Attorney-in-Charge, Federal Defenders of New York
Search for other works by this author on:
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2021) 33 (3): 189–196.
Citation
Deirdre D. von Dornum; Sentencing with Love, Not Hate. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 February 2021; 33 (3): 189–196. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2021.33.3.189
Download citation file:
Sign in
Don't already have an account? Register
Client Account
You could not be signed in. Please check your email address / username and password and try again.
Could not validate captcha. Please try again.