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 Norwegian Barents Sea Management Plan and the EC Marine Strategy Directive: Some Political and Legal Challenges with an Ecosystem-Based Approach to the Protection of the European Marine Environment

This article addresses some of the implications of the EU's proposed Marine Strategy Directive for ongoing work in the regional seas conventions and for national work on regional marine strategies. The starting point is the proposed directive's focus on the ecosystem approach to the protection of the marine environment. Key elements within this approach are analysed, such as integration of environmental considerations into other policy areas; introduction of ecological quality objectives; and establishment of holistic monitoring and assessment programmes. Is it possible to transform these concepts into legally binding obligations? What will the implications of the proposed directive be for the rights and obligations of EU Member States under international law? A Management Plan for the Norwegian Part of the Barents Sea ('Barents Plan') was adopted by the Norwegian Government in March 2006 and approved by the Norwegian Storting (Parliament) in June 2006. It provides an example of a concrete application of the concepts in the proposed directive. Based on an analysis of the proposed Marine Strategy Directive and the Barents Plan, some key political and legal challenges are discussed in this article.     

The view from below: Local government and Putin's reforms

Local government reforms in contemporary Russia are placed in the broader contexts of political reform under Putin and the historical relationship between local administration and the state. Reforms of local government thus help illuminate the architecture of contemporary state building in Russia and the degree to which contemporary Russia perpetuates political traditions. This study reviews the antecedent action in local government prior to the Putin era. It then examines the Kozak Commission and the new law on local government, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of these reforms. Finally, this study examines the challenges of implementing the reforms and what these challenges tell us about devolution and centralisation under Putin.