Incorporation the Procedural Justice Model into Federal Sentencing Jurisprudence in the Aftermath of United States v. Booker: Establishing United States Sentencing Courts
In United States v. Booker, the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) suffered from a fatal constitutional infirmity and therefore declared the Guidelines “effectively advisory.” In light of Booker, this article proposes a solution to the current problems faced in federal sentencing jurisprudence by proposing a process-oriented model to sentence criminal defendants. This theory is predicated upon empirical data developed by social psychologists in the area of procedural justice.
As set forth infra, the relevant data supports the proposition that positive valuations of sentencing outcomes will depend upon, and be influenced by, perceptions regarding the fairness of the sentencing process. Specifically, research suggests that satisfaction with outcomes is predicated upon, and closely related to, perceptions of procedural fairness. As a result, factors such as “voice” (the ability of individuals directly affected by a specific decision to have their opinions heard, considered, and respected by the decision-maker) and quality of treatment directly impact fairness valuations. Based on these findings, empirical data underscores that individuals are more likely to accept unfavorable outcomes if they believe that the attendant processes were fair and/or equitable. The implication of this research is that process matters. Namely, acceptance of, and satisfaction with, decision-making and/or rule promulgation—particularly if unfavorable—depends heavily upon subjective perceptions of procedural fairness. Moreover, perceptions regarding institutional legitimacy, competency, and trust are closely connected to the manner in which individuals are treated and decisions are effectuated. Accordingly, based on research in the area of procedural justice, this article proposes a process-based model for federal sentencing practice that vests with select participants—the courts and criminal defendants—primary control over the ultimate sentencing determination and argues that sentencing decisions must be the product of procedures that are likely to be viewed as fair, equitable, reliable, and legitimate.
