•  
  •  
 

Authors

Tim Cone

Document Type

Article

Media Type

Text

Abstract

After the United States Supreme Court announced in United States v. Booker that, henceforth, federal criminal sentences would be re-viewed for reasonableness, it instructed that appellate courts could review sentences for substantive reasonableness. However, its observations about substantive reasonableness review have not congealed into concrete parameters. As a result, a circuit conflict exists regarding substantive reasonableness review, some circuits holding that the re-weighing of sentencing factors is a legitimate part of substantive reasonableness review, while others holding it is not. This Article argues the re-weighing of sentencing factors should not be a part of substantive reasonableness review. It proposes that substantive reasonableness review should focus on the soundness of a sentencing court™s reasoning and should, therefore, be limited to reviewing whether a sentence is arbitrary, or based on impermissible factors.

First Page

65

Last Page

82

Publication Date

9-1-2012

Department

Other

ISSN

0734-1490

Language

eng

Publisher

Northern Illinois University Law Review

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.