Rejoinder to Professor Ruback's article: Warranted and Unwarranted Complexity in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Professor Barry Ruback critiques the U.S. sentencing guidelines for their complexity, their lack of articulated purpose, and their unreliability. In a brief rejoinder to the complexity argument, this article points out that the complexity of previous sentencing practices helped drive the complexity of the guidelines the federal Sentencing Commission developed. Further, it notes that while the commission failed to articulate a philosophical purpose to the guidelines, the commission did develop guidelines that are a modified just desert model. Finally, the complexity of the guidelines does increase the risk of miscalculation and thus unreliability compared to simpler guidelines, but this discussion shows that a fairer benchmark is to past sentencing practices.