On U.S. Federal Determinate Sentences Reform

Center of the American criminal justice system is always on penalties institutionalreform.Imprisonment is the backbone of the penalty system,therefore, reform ofcriminal justice system is basically about imprisonment reform.Imprisonment reformis mainly reflected in three aspects which are sentencing system, execution systemand execution mechanism.The first major reform of the sentencing system was thechange from determinate sentences to indeterminate sentences since1870s to the late1960s,the second one is the translation from indeterminate sentences to determinatesentences which has been began in the1970s.Determinate sentences still on itsway,and the impact was surprised,particularly noteworthy.To some extent, America’sstanding in the world is doomed to guide other countries, or even lead one.Cognitionand evaluation of determinate sentences reform of the United States would help usmaking derivation to policy of crime and criminal penalty.Since1870s to the late1960s, the US imposed indeterminate sentences.Since1960s,crime and punishment have been serious,Surge in the growth of crime and fear ofcrime caused social unrest, high recidivism rate birth "corrective useless", rampantsentencing disparity and discrimination hurt the public’s sense of justice, thefrequent prison riots prompted the authorities to examine execution system,Media,and the public attention put highly attention on Crime and punishment problems,"Law&Order" had become very influential political slogan,neoconservativepoliticians respond policy of tough on crime and severe to penalties.All of these gavea birth of reform of determinate sentences.Since1970s, the United States rose determinate sentences reform,the federal andvast majority of states have adopted a pattern of determinate sentences.At thefederal level, Congress enacted Sentencing Reform Act in1984, reshape the judgediscretion to determine sentencing,provided appellate review, to determinesentencing and revoked parole.Major initiatives of determinate sentences reform include implementation of Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Mandatory sentences.United States Sentencing Commission was established according to SentencingReform Act,which formulate Federal Sentencing Guidelines in order to determinesentencing factors for and sentencing approach for judge,to reduce sentencingdisparity and achieve fair.Federal judges were bound to Federal SentencingGuidelines,the provision of the federal sentencing statute that makes the Guidelinesmandatory is stricken by the Federal Supreme Court ruled in a case of2005,thereby,Federal Sentencing Guidelines became advisory.Even that,the rate of sentenceimposed to Federal Sentencing Guidelines range pretty high.Mandatory sentence is a sentence that is specifically required or falls within a rangerequired by statute as punishment for an offense,which include imposing minimumsamount of penalties for crime,mandating courts to impose harshersentences on habitual offenders who are convicted of three or more serious criminaloffenses,require prisoners should serve a substantial part of their original sentenceswithout remissions,that is mandatory minimum sentencing,three strike-out law andtruth in sentencing law.Mandatory minimum sentencing is the first sentence and the typical kind ofmandatory sentences.Mandatory minimum sentence has a long history,in thebeginning, it was limited to murder, rebellion and other serious crimes,now itcommonly prescribed in drug crime,firearms offenses,sex offenses,childpornography and related crimes, identity theft crimes.Mandatory minimumsentencing faces criticism of destruction to guide rational and constitutionalissues,but despite this,14.5%of all offenders remained subject to mandatoryminimum penalty.Three strike-out law aim to punish recidivism whit severe penalties,it can be tracedback in the1920s, but since the1980s,ture three strike-out law has becomeeverywhere.In1994,Violent Crime Control and Enforcement Act provide threestrike-out law,following controversy as well. In2003, the Federal Supreme Courtruling two cases of California involving three strike-out law,three strike-out law that aim to protect the public safety is constitutional,and the sentence does not violatethe Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.Truth in sentencing law requires offender served "substantial portion" of theiroriginal sentence，and limit or cancel the “good time” and parole.It mainly responseto the public believes that serve time of sentence is too short and the governmentwas weakness in protection of victim.To encourage states to implement Truth insentencing law, Violent Crime Control and Enforcement Act providedTruth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grant Program,which required “85%”serve time ofsentence.In order to obtain federal funding, some states had reform to Truth insentencing law.To1999,41states of originally eligible for funding criteria andconducted a Truth in sentencing law reform obtain TIS project funding.Review on the sentencing practice since determinate sentences reform,we foundthat,sentencing disparity and discrimination are quite obvious, no direct andsufficient evidence to relation shipment between severe penalties and reduction ofcrime,but penalty has become greater severity,mass incarceration is appears, judicialand prison expenditure sharply surge.So,we draw the conclusion that rationalpurpose of determinate sentences reform is not achieved, and the fundamental reasoncould be the failure of derivation to norms of determinate sentences reform.Base on the attributes of excellent norms-valid,justice,humanity,as a validnorms,mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines deem complete equality as justice,while ignore the proportional fair,that is misunderstanding of justice.But theacceptance of guidelines is pretty high,advisory Federal Sentencing Guidelines maybe run in future,and Federal Sentencing Guidelines is just reflection of practicalreason.Combining with the concept of justice, connotation and Claim of sentencingjustice,advisory Federal Sentencing Guidelines is an excellent tool to achieve asentencing justice.In fact,Federal Sentencing Commission has been revised and willcontinue to revise guidelines.But the judge’s acceptance to mandatory sentences norms is quite low, that is tosay,the norms has significant shortcomings in valid.Obviously, it is no a exchange of harm, and a serious transgression of the boundaries of freedom and forced.In short,mandatory sentences norms has deep trouble in valid,justice andhumanity, should berevoked or amended.We could changes to Mandatory Minimum Penalties,developalternatives to incarceration,place more inmates on probation,reinstate parole,expandGood Time Cred its,expand Sentence Reduction,modify the “Safety Valve”Provision,repeal federal criminal statutes for some offenses.In macro-context, conservative-oriented “tough on crime” has graduallysubsided,“smart on crime” has become a basic consensus.And then,determinatesentences reform tend to be moderate.U.S. Federal determinate sentences reform has certain warning on Chinese reform on sentencing. The purpose of sentencing reform in China-standardizedsentencing and justice in punishment are undoubtedly reasonable, however, welack the necessary and sufficient conditions to achieve the reasonable goal.While In the absence of advantage of U.S. Federal determinate sentences, theresult of Chinese reform on sentencing may be worse. To pursuit of justice penalties, first of all, what we need is not radical reform, but to revise and improve the existing conditions.