May 21, 2009
West-coast swing for the US Sentencing Commission next week
As detailed in this official notice, the US Sentencing Commission has scheduled a public hearing for May 27-28, 2009, at Stanford Law School. This link provides the agenda and the list of impressive persons scheduled to testify at the USSC hearing. From the folks at Stanford, I received these additional details about the hearing:
This public hearing is the second in a series of regional hearings to mark the 25th anniversary of the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 ("SRA").... The hearing will allow commissioners to hear directly from judges, practitioners, academics, and other individuals about their experiences with, and any suggestions regarding, federal sentencing policy. In particular, the Commission is interested in the following topics:
1. How has the advisory nature of the federal sentencing guidelines after the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543, U.S. 220 (2005) affected federal sentencing?
2. What should be the role of the federal sentencing guidelines in federal sentencing? What, if any, changes should be made to the federal sentencing guidelines?
3. Does the federal sentencing system strike the appropriate balance between judicial discretion and uniformity and certainty in sentencing?
4. How should offense and offender characteristics be taken into account in federal sentencing? What, if any, changes should be made with respect to accounting for offense and offender characteristics?
5. What type of analysis should courts use for imposing sentences within or outside the guideline sentencing range?
6. How have Booker and subsequent Supreme Court decisions affected appellate review of sentences?
7. What, if any, recommendations should the Commission make regarding the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure?
8. What, if any, recommendations should the Commission make to Congress with respect to statutory changes regarding federal sentencing?
The USSC is asking all the right questions, and I suspect the impressive folks testifying will have lots of good answers.
May 21, 2009 at 09:40 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference West-coast swing for the US Sentencing Commission next week:
Not a word, nor a hint of a word, nor an ort of a hint of a word, the V word.
These are heartless, aloof, elite, rent seeking cult criminals. Pray, they get jacked on the way to their elite meeting.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 21, 2009 10:07:47 PM
"Pray, they get jacked on the way to their elite meeting."
Might be a deterrent to writing laws in a language other than English. People should be able to understand this stuff.
Posted by: Anon | May 21, 2009 11:27:39 PM
Anon: Any legal utterance rated above the 6th grade should be voidable. Lawyer language is a type of bad faith. It is theft, and criminal conversion of the chattel of the public, the law.
Any utterance in the criminal law rated above the 6th grade should be void, violating legality, as well as being bad faith.
It is theft and bad faith in forcing people to hire a lawyer to translate and manage. Justice is totally manageable in Plain English.
I would like to see a mandatory caning sentencing guideline for any lawyer or judge found to violate this rule. The strokes of the cane should equal the number of words causing the violation. Go ahead, Your Worship, feel free to write a 100 page baloney opinion. We will just be here all day, beating your rent seeking, thievin' ass.
The above comment likely violates the rule.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 21, 2009 11:35:41 PM
Posted by: CrackFacts | May 22, 2009 8:45:04 AM