« Washington Post editorial urges Maryland to repeal death penalty | Main | New ACS issue brief on the right to counsel and recent SCOTUS rulings »

January 10, 2013

"Anchoring the Sentencing Scale: A Modest Proposal"

The title of this post is the title of this interesting article I came across via SSRN, which covers a sentencing issue that I think gets far too little attention given its practical importance.  The piece is authored by Richard Lippke, and here is the abstract:

This paper proposes a partial solution to the anchoring problem in sentencing theory.  After explaining the problem and the importance of a solution to it, I advance what I term the “commensurate harms principle,” according to which the losses and deprivations imposed on convicted offenders as punishment should be kept commensurate with the standard harms their crimes cause victims.  The principle is defended as an aid to setting sentences for core criminal offense types rather than tokens.

Intelligent application of the principle requires us to gain an informed understanding of both the harms caused by crimes and the harms done by criminal sanctions, particularly imprisonment.  The principle is grounded in a justification of legal punishment that involves censure and equalizing hard treatment.  Various objections to the principle are addressed, including claims that victim and penal harms cannot be compared and that the harms produced by crimes and criminal sanctions extend beyond victims and offenders.  I contend that the commensurate harms principle would counsel the sparing use of imprisonment and with many, though not all offense types, support less harsh sentences than are the norm in many countries.

January 10, 2013 at 09:55 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2017c358b75f9970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Anchoring the Sentencing Scale: A Modest Proposal":

Comments

There are 20 million FBI Index felonies a year. There are 2 million prosecutions.

Each prosecution has to stand in for 10 crimes not in the indictment if we are going to get realistic instead of this hug a thug proposal.

This paper would have greater validity if it multiplied the harm of the predicate crime by ten before making a calculation of commensurate punishment.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 11, 2013 12:16:09 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB