How might sentencing guidelines affect the sentencing decision of a judge?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The original U.S. sentencing guidelines set narrow, mandatory ranges of punishment based on the instant offense, the offender's prior criminal history, and facts that, if proven by a preponderance of the evidence, could potentially enhance an offender's sentence above the range in the guidelines. If the prosecutor could show aggravating facts to the sentencing judge, the court would be obligated to enhance the punishment even further. U.S. v. Booker (2005) ruled that this practice was unconstitutional, but there were two distinct majority opinions that followed. One majority opinion said that, to enhance the punishment, the defendant must admit the aggravating circumstances or the prosecutor must prove guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The second majority opinion said that the guidelines should be advisory rather than mandatory. This served to give federal judges discretion in sentencing once again. Because the intent of guidelines is to limit disparity between sentences, there is a narrowed range of sanctions from which to choose.