Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
NARROW
Format
Subjects
Journal
Article Type
Date
Availability
1-20 of 54
Douglas A. Berman
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2020) 32 (3): 178–180.
Published: 01 February 2020
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2020) 32 (3): 181–183.
Published: 01 February 2020
Abstract
This essay, adapted from a speech upon receipt of the 2018 Richard P. Kern Memorial Award from the National Association of Sentencing Commissions, details why sentencing is “dang hard” and explores implications of that reality. The essay argues that the challenges of sentencing not only demand that all jurisdictions have a sentencing commission as an essential permanent agency, but also call for these commissions always to think big and to strive to work deep and wide to study all facets of modern criminal justice systems. The essay also contends that sentencing errors may be quite common and that, even if we manage to get sentencing “right” at the outset, changes in society and in individuals can make even “right” sentences wrong over time. Sensible humility about the likelihood of sentencing errors further suggests, for example: at the rule-making stage , having sentencing laws include sunset provisions and having sentencing commissions review and audit major guidelines and related sentencing practices on a regular basis; at the case-specific stage , having far more robust substantive appellate review of sentences, having more robust mechanisms for parole and judicial reconsideration and clemency, and even developing more creative means to apply and revise different forms of punishment as time passes and new information is gathered.
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2019) 32 (2): 63–64.
Published: 01 December 2019
Abstract
This Issue of FSR explores a range of perspectives on the import and impact of the First Step Act as we approach the first anniversary of President Trump signing it into law. Key themes that emerge from materials in this Issue include the need for effective implementation of the Act and the idea that the Act provides just a start on needed federal criminal justice reforms. The clear takeaway is that there is still much work to do both in advocating for the next pieces of federal criminal justice legislation and in seeking to better administer existing laws. But, as we reach a notable first anniversary for the First Step Act, all should be sure to take time to celebrate a year of real progress, no matter how much further one believes we need to go.
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2019) 32 (1): 1–2.
Published: 01 October 2019
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2019) 31 (3): 169–170.
Published: 01 February 2019
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2018) 31 (2): 99–100.
Published: 01 December 2018
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2018) 30 (4-5): 305–316.
Published: 01 April 2018
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2017) 30 (1): 1–2.
Published: 01 October 2017
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2015) 28 (1): 1–3.
Published: 01 October 2015
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2015) 27 (5): 267–269.
Published: 01 June 2015
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2014) 26 (5): 283–286.
Published: 01 June 2014
Abstract
Ten years after the Supreme Court issued its Blakely decision, American sentencing law and policy feel very different. In 2004, many believed modern sentencing systems were destined always to be on a legislatively driven, inexorable march to ever-greater severity. A decade later, sentencing remains the center of a vigorous debate about what we want from our criminal justice system and even who we are as a society, but the terms of the debate now largely revolve around how much to lower prison terms rather than how much to raise them. This essay highlights the continued constitutional fallout from Blakely , and the current policy debates that have come to define modern sentencing systems.
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2014) 26 (4): 213–216.
Published: 01 April 2014
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2013) 26 (2): 73–74.
Published: 01 December 2013
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2013) 25 (5): 287–289.
Published: 01 June 2013
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2012) 25 (1): 1–5.
Published: 01 October 2012
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2012) 24 (3): 159–160.
Published: 01 February 2012
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2011) 23 (4): 251–252.
Published: 01 April 2011
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2011) 23 (3): 167–170.
Published: 01 February 2011
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2009) 22 (2): 77–80.
Published: 01 December 2009
Journal Articles
Federal Sentencing Reporter (2009) 21 (3): 182–185.
Published: 01 February 2009