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.     

(Re-)Setting the Scholarly Agenda on Transjudicial Communication

We consider the contributions made by Robert H. Bork's Coercing Virtue (2003) and Anne-Marie Slaughter's A New World Order (2004) to the ongoing debate over the citation of foreign law in United States courts. While empirically minded sociolegal scholars might be tempted to dismiss these books as mere op-eds, that would be a mistake. Taken with the spate of other recent work, they supply the makings of an agenda for rigorous research devoted to understanding the exchange of law among nations.     

Poppy seed ingestion as a contributing factor to opiate-positive urinalysis results: the Pacific perspective.

The possible contribution of poppy seed foods to positive opiate urinalysis results, especially from foods available in the Pacific Rim area, has recently become an issue for the U.S. Army Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory in Hawaii. To assess the likelihood of this possible contribution, seven different poppy seed food products were consumed by male and female volunteers, and urine specimens were collected at time increments up to either 24 or 72 h. Specimens were evaluated for opiates using Roche Abuscreen radioimmunoassay (RIA), and all RIA positive specimens were analyzed for morphine and codeine using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Poppy seed cake, bagels, muffins, and rolls did not contain sufficient quantities of poppy seeds to give rise to opiate positive specimens by U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) GC-MS cutoff levels (morphine = 4000 ng/mL, codeine = 2000 ng/mL), although a number of specimens were positive by National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) cutoff levels (morphine and codeine = 300 ng/mL). However, ingestion of poppy seed streusel or Danish pastry led to confirmed morphine and codeine positive specimens, irrespective of the use of DOD or NIDA confirmation cutoff values. In addition, significant amounts of codeine were observed in a number of these specimens. These findings argue against the unqualified application of previously published quantitative guidelines for eliminating poppy seed ingestion as a possible cause for a positive opiate urinalysis result.