Guidelines keep it all fair

The Charlottesville Daily Progress
Published: May 28, 2008

Sentencing guidelines have come under fire recently from critics who say the guidelines may impose penalties that are harsher than necessary — such as for non-violent drug crimes.

But on one score, sentencing guidelines have proved a major boon for justice and fairness:

They reduce variations in sentencing based on race or economic status.

And to the surprise of researchers, Virginia ranked well against other states for the fairness and consistency of its sentencing.

Why the surprise?

Virginia was chosen as a study state because it falls at one extreme on the sentencing guideline continuum. Here, the guidelines are fully voluntary; judges do not have to follow them.

Minnesota represented the other extreme in the study; that state has strict rules for how sentencing should be applied. Representing the middle was Michigan, which allows some judicial discretion.

Researchers found that in all three states, no matter how different their policies, sentencing guidelines improved judicial functioning and fairness of outcomes.

It should be a special source of pride for Virginia to prove that flexibility and fairness can work together. Free to make their own decisions, judges choose the best, most consistent course of action.

That is partly because sentencing guidelines, even if voluntary, exert a regulatory effect. Judges typically stay up to date on decisions in other jurisdictions, especially major ones, so they are aware of how their colleagues are handling similar cases. This peer influence helps them determine how to rule in similar cases in their own courts.

Besides peer influence, there is also public opinion. Published sentencing guidelines give everyone — Joe and Jane Public included — a benchmark for penalties that are generally considered fair. If a judge widely deviates from that benchmark, he or she had better be ready to defend the decision to a potentially critical public.

Legislators may also be attuned to public opinion, and legislators appoint judges. If a judge’s sentencing pattern is too far off course, he or she may not retain the legislature’s confidence.

Sentencing guidelines were a reform instituted in the 1970s in response to claims that black felons were being sentenced more harshly than white felons.

The recent study — by the National Center for State Courts — shows that such guidelines do indeed succeed at setting a standard for sentencing based on objective measures such as the nature of the crime and the felon’s history, not on his race or socioeconomic status.

And that is very good news.