scholarly journals Commentary on the Preliminary Draft of the Sentencing Guidelines Issued by the United States Sentencing Commission in September, 1986

1986 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 1069
Author(s):  
Harvey M. Silets ◽  
Susan W. Brenner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
Preliminary Draft

International Sugar Council

1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 416-416
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Market ◽  
Sugar Production ◽  
Special Committee ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The World ◽  
One Year ◽  
Preliminary Draft

A meeting of the International Sugar Council was held in London, June 26 to July 20, 1950. The meeting was attended by delegates of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, France, Haiti, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Peru, Philippine Republic, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Yugoslavia, and the United States. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the world situation in sugar and the proposal for a new international sugar agreement. The council adopted a protocol which extended the international sugar agreement of 1937 one year from August 31, 1950. During 1950, the council created a special committee to 1) study the changing sugar situation as it related to the need or desirability for negotiating a new agreement, and 2) report to the council, as occasion might arise, on its findings and recommendations as to the possible basis of a new agreement. The special committee prepared a document which set forth certain proposals in the form of a preliminary draft agreement. The draft agreement included six fundamental bases: 1) the regulation of exports, 2) the stabilization of sugar prices on the world market, 3) a solution to the currency problem, 4) the limitation of sugar production by importing countries, 5) measures to increase consumption of sugar and 6) the treatment of non-signatory countries. The draft was then considered by the council at its meeting on July 20 at which time the council decided to submit it to member and observer governments for comments and to transmit such comments for consideration at a meeting of the special committee.

Probability and Punishment

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-272
Author(s):  
Jacob Schuman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Threshold Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Case Based ◽  
Drug Sentencing

The United States Sentencing Guidelines place little emphasis on probability. Instead, the Guidelines recommend a sentence in each case based only on whether certain facts about the offender’s crime exceed a “threshold” level of likelihood. Guidelines sentences therefore fail to reflect the precise odds of each defendant’s wrongdoing, which makes them both inefficient and unfair. This model of decision making is particularly problematic in drug sentencing, where judges often impose lengthy sentences based on drug quantity calculations that carry a high risk of error. To address these problems, district courts should exercise their discretion, and policymakers should implement reforms that incorporate probability into punishment.

scholarly journals Codifying Cultural Heritage: Why United States Criminal Law Suddenly Treats Our Rare Materials with Respect

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-212
Author(s):  
Travis McDade
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
American People ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
Term Benefit

“The Cultural Heritage Guideline will, in my opinion, prove to be one of the most important of all the sentencing guidelines for the long-term benefit of our nation,” said United States Attorney (now federal magistrate judge) Paul Warner. He was testifying before the United States Sentencing Commission, which was about to get serious with cultural crimes. He was also echoing what he had written in a letter to the Commission a mere three months earlier. In that letter, which fully addressed the harm caused to the American people by crimes against cultural resources, he explained that “[f]ew undertakings by the . . .

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document