Since 1980, 22 state and federal jurisdictions have adopted sentencing guidelines. Nineteen still have them. No two systems are alike. Experience suggests that any well-designed system requires five core features: a permanent, balanced, independent, and adequately funded sentencing commission; typical-case presumptive sentences and departure criteria; a hybrid sentencing theory that recognizes both retributive and crime control purposes; balance between the competing benefits of rules and discretion; and sentence recommendations informed by resource and demographic impact assessments. Balance is needed in terms of commission composition, between conflicting sentencing purposes, between rules and discretion, and between the influence of the commission, the legislature, and case-level actors. Guidelines proponents disagree about a number of important issues. Some relate to which crimes and sentencing issues should be regulated. Others concern the design details that determine how the system actually works. It is clear, however, that preguidelines regimes of unstructured, highly discretionary sentencing are unacceptable and that commission-drafted guidelines, endorsed by the American Bar Association and the American Law Institute, are the only successful sentencing reform model. In four decades, no competing model of comparable detail and scope has been seriously proposed.

中文翻译：

---

美国判刑准则四十年：我们学到了什么？

自1980年以来，已有22个州和联邦辖区采用了量刑指南。仍有19个。没有两个系统是相同的。经验表明，任何设计良好的系统都需要五个核心功能：一个永久，平衡，独立和有足够资金的量刑委员会；典型案例的推定语句和离开标准；一种混合量刑理论，既能识别报应目的又能控制犯罪目的；在规则与自由裁量权的竞争利益之间取得平衡；并根据资源和人口影响评估提供句子建议。在委员会组成，相互矛盾的量刑目的之间，规则与裁量权之间以及委员会，立法机关和案件级行为者的影响之间，需要保持平衡。准则支持者不同意许多重要问题。有些涉及应规范哪些犯罪和量刑问题。其他人则关注确定系统实际工作方式的设计细节。但是，很明显，无组织，高度自由裁量的量刑准则制度是不可接受的，并且由美国律师协会和美国法律协会认可的委员会草拟的准则是唯一成功的量刑改革模式。在过去的40年中，没有认真提出过任何具有可比性的细节和范围的竞争模型。高度自由裁量的量刑是不可接受的，并且由美国律师协会和美国法律协会认可的委员会草拟的指导方针是唯一成功的量刑改革模式。在过去的40年中，没有认真提出过任何具有可比性的细节和范围的竞争模型。高度自由裁量的量刑是不可接受的，并且由美国律师协会和美国法律协会认可的委员会草拟的指导方针是唯一成功的量刑改革模式。在过去的40年中，没有认真提出过任何具有可比性的细节和范围的竞争模型。