Plea Agreements, Judicial Discretion, and Sentencing Goals

• NCJ Number: 137287
• Journal: FJC Directions Issue: 3 Dated: (May 1992) Pages: 1-12
• Author(s): P J Hofer
• Date Published: 1992
• Length: 12 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article discusses how the acceptance of a plea and an accompanying agreement affect judicial discretion at the sentencing stage, how a plea agreement should be taken into account in the sentencing decision in an individual case, and how the various types of agreements permitted under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Sentencing Commission's policy statements affect the overall ability of the criminal justice system to achieve its multiple goals.

Abstract

Judicial review of plea agreements is contemplated by the guidelines as the best mechanism for ensuring that prosecutors exercise their discretion fairly and so do not undermine the intentions of the sentencing guidelines to provide sentences commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. One approach to help reduce the effects of plea bargaining on sentence disparity is "real-offense sentencing." In a real-offense system, sentences are based on a defendant's actual criminal behavior, not the charges of conviction. The relevant-conduct principle and cross-references between guidelines often work to ensure that the offense level is based on the actual offense behavior. Although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines provide for means to prevent a plea agreement that does not focus on the defendant's real-offense behavior as the subject of sentencing, misleading factual stipulations and charge dismissals may still undermine sentencing guidelines' goals. Plea agreements that understate criminal conduct to which a severe guideline or mandatory minimum apply are likely to continue as long as there are a significant number of cases in which the government, defense attorney, and the judge all agree that the sentence called for by the statute or guideline is unjust. The elimination of mandatory minimum statutes and the provision of greater flexibility, especially in the use of alternatives to imprisonment, would make it easier for judges to live with both the guidelines and their consciences. The time may be right for reconsidering whether plea-agreement procedures are adequate for the guideline era. 13 notes