The Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker seemed to portend a new era for federal sentencing. By making federal guidelines advisory rather than “mandatory,” and authorizing judges to critically review their development, Booker empowered judges to reject unsound guidelines. Booker has had, however, surprisingly little effect on sentence severity or imprisonment use. Sentencing below guideline ranges increased, but more from a general relaxation of guidelines’ restrictions than from reasoned rejection of unsound guidelines. They continue to exert gravitational pull. Inter-judge disparity, modestly reduced by the earlier guidelines, increased after Booker. The commission claims that racial disparities increased, but the evidence is mixed and controversial. Bias in judges’ decisions contributes less to racial disparity than do statutes and guidelines that disproportionately affect African Americans. Booker has the potential to reduce structural disparities caused by unsound guidelines. The federal system remains unbalanced, however, with control of sentencing concentrated largely in the hands of Congress and prosecutors rather than of the commission and judges. Only repeal of statutory mandatory minimums and many specific statutory directives to the commission will permit federal sentencing reform to work as intended.

中文翻译：

---

布克之后的联邦判刑

最高法院在美国诉布克案中的判决似乎预示着联邦量刑的新纪元。通过使联邦指南成为咨询性而非“强制性”，并授权法官对其发展进行严格审查，布克授权法官拒绝不合理的指南。但是，布克对刑罚轻重或使用监禁的影响却很小。低于准则范围的判刑增加了，但这更多是由于普遍放宽了准则的限制，而不是理性地拒绝了不正确的准则。他们继续施加引力。布克之后，法官之间的差异在早期的指导原则下有所减少。该委员会声称种族差距有所增加，但证据是混合的且有争议的。法官的决定中的偏见对种族差异的影响要小于对非裔美国人产生不成比例影响的法规和准则。布克有潜力减少因不完善的准则而导致的结构差异。但是，联邦制仍然不平衡，判决的控制主要集中在国会和检察官手中，而不是委员会和法官手中。只有废除法定强制性最低要求和向委员会提交的许多特定法定指令，才能使联邦量刑改革按预期进行。判决的控制权主要集中在国会和检察官手中，而不是委员会和法官手中。只有废除法定强制性最低要求和向委员会提交的许多特定法定指令，才能使联邦量刑改革按预期进行。判决的控制权主要集中在国会和检察官手中，而不是委员会和法官手中。只有废除法定强制性最低要求和向委员会提交的许多特定法定指令，才能使联邦量刑改革按预期进行。