April 25, 2013
Imagine the debate and analysis if we had an "FSG draft"
Hard-core football fans have long had this date circled on their calendars because tonight is the start of the 2013 National Football League Draft. Though I am a huge sports fan, I tend not to get too worked up about who may be taken in the first round by what team or whether and when there will be some big trade to move up or down the draft board. But I am consistently intrigued and impressed my how much time and energy is devoted, on ESPN and sports talk radio and elsewhere, to the pros and cons of different college football players who are about to become pros (and may, in the future, also become cons).
With tonight's NFL draft on my mind, I came up with the idea suggested in the title of this post, namely imagining a draft of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines by a bunch of sentencing experts. In part because I think there are at least a few good existing features of the US Sentencing Guidelines which do not get much attention or praise, I especially like the notion of imagining the goal of this draft to be having a bunch of federal sentencing stakeholders pick the very best of the existing federal sentencing guidelines which they would be eager to preserve as the starting points for a new-and-improved federal sentencing structure.
Put more simply, dear readers, if you were forced to select one of the existing federal sentencing guidelines as the very best, which one would you select. Is the an existing guideline you like so much (for whatever reason) that you would be eager to bestow upon it the title of "Top FSG Draft Pick"? Even better, would anyone like to be the Mel Kiper Jr. of the FSG Draft to provide a "big board" ranking the top guidelines or explaining why you think certain guidelines should slip way down the draft board?
I realize one has to be a pretty big sentencing geek to get a kick out of this thought experiment, but I sure hope somebody might be inclined to play along with me here.
April 25, 2013 at 06:09 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Imagine the debate and analysis if we had an "FSG draft":
Trade your pick for cash.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 25, 2013 6:42:13 PM
Based on the prospects available I'd do a Mike Ditka and trade everyone of my picks for good ole 3553 and just hope the commissioner disregards the ineligibility for the best interests ofvthe game.
Posted by: Matt | Apr 25, 2013 6:48:54 PM
Posted by: JMac | Apr 25, 2013 7:38:29 PM
1B1.3, no doubt. it's more powerful than an acquittal!
Posted by: HGD | Apr 25, 2013 9:36:29 PM
Has anyone ever been sentenced under 2M1.1?
Posted by: Doug B. | Apr 25, 2013 10:04:45 PM
Section 5G1.1 because it allows the Commission to set chapter two offense levels independently of statutory limits on sentences. I also have a soft spot for section 1B1.6 -- eagerly helpful, visually pleasing, and never in need of amendment.
Posted by: Kevin Bennardo | Apr 26, 2013 2:07:37 PM
I draft 2A6.1 (burning two picks if necessary so I get both 2A6.1(a)(2) and (b)(6)). Combine those two and I get a base offense of 2. I also draft 3B1.2, to get a reduction of 2 to 4 levels. And I draft 3E1.1(a) for another 2 levels off. We are now at a base offense level of -4. We're off the grid and there is no guidelines sentence. Since every federal judge must first calculate the guidelines sentence the person cannot be sentenced. I think -4 is the lowest base offense possible, but would love to be proven wrong.
I do not draft 3E1.1(b). That section is poison. I would draft JaMarcus Russell before 3E1.1(b).
Posted by: Paul | Apr 26, 2013 2:43:02 PM