The sentencing reform act of 1984: A bold approach to the unwarranted sentencing disparity problem

Conclusion In 1984, after years of study and thorough debate, a bipartisan majority of the Congress enacted perhaps the most far-reaching reform of the federal criminal justice system in the history of the United States. The Sentencing Reform Act and the federal sentencing guidelines are now beginning to produce data indicating that the objectives of avoiding unwarranted disparity and invidious discrimination are being achieved.After an uncertain beginning, the guidelines are gaining acceptance by courts and criminal justice practitioners. As one appellate court observed in admonishing lower courts that the guidelines must be respected:We have embarked on a new course. Only time will tell whether the use of the guidelines will result in an improvement over the old system. But unless we follow the spirit and written directions of the guidelines, we will never know if they have been given a fair test. They at least deserve that.Indeed, the bold new approach to sentencing that is being followed today in federal courthouses throughout the United States deserves an opportunity to succeed, given its many beneficial features and the lofty goals toward which the reforms are directed. While ample work remains for the United States Sentencing Commission to monitor and improve the guidelines, indications at this still early date are that the experiment is succeeding.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the fifth conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, Parliament House, Edinburgh, Scotland, August 5–9, 1990. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Sentencing Commission.B.A., Davidson College 1964; J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law 1967.B.A., Ohio State University 1974; M.S., Arizona State University 1980; M.A., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1983.B.S., Clemson University 1971; M.S., Clemson University 1975; J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law 1978.     

The effect of predatory rent-seeking on household saving and portfolio choices: A cross section analysis

The existence of predatory behavior, when measured by the number of lawyers per capita and the crime rate, seems to have an impact on saving and investment behavior in U.S. households. Where the risk of redistribution are lowest, the incentives to save are higher and, a fortiriori, the willingness to invest in highly vulnerable financial instruments is enhanced. Either because of low saving rates or because of disintermediation, households in states where the risks of redistribution are greater avoid accumulating financial assets.Recent years have seen a considerable decline in the U.S. saving rate. There is also evidence of large differences in saving rates from one country to another, with U.S. households among the lowest savers. Yet not all of these variations have been explained satisfactorily in empirical studies based on conventional theory. Perhaps one explanation which has been inadequately studied is the reduced expected retirement time horizon whether it be due to objective conditions such as retirement age and life expectancy or to uncertainty. Some reasons for myopic planning horizons are macroeconomic instability (McCauley and Zimer, 1989), the possibility of nuclear war (Slemrod, 1982, 1986 and 1989); Henderschott and Peek, 1985 and 1987); and the fear of socio-political conflict (Stewart and Venieris, 1985). I have suggested and tested here yet another factor: the fear of future redistribution. Using differences in interest income across U.S. states, this paper shows that fear of redistribution does seem to have a large influence on saving behavior.     

Federalism and the Management of External Relations in Nigeria: Lessons from the Past and Challenges for the Future

Despite successive military regimes, state and local governmentsin Nigeria have been able to engage in limited forms of foreignaffairs activity. both directly abroad and indirectly throughinstitutions of the national government. The trend since independencehas been to make foreign affairs an exclusive responsibilityof the federal government. Generally, though, the military regimeshave been better able than the civilian governments to limitconstituent diplomacy. Under the Third Republic, therefore,state and local governments are likely to assert themselvessomewhat more in foreign affairs than they have recently.     

From rags to robes

He is author of many works about social class, including The Protestant Establishment Revisitedand Philadelphia Gentlemen,both published by Transaction Publishers.