Aggregate sentencing patterns constitute policy by revealing how a society regards various crimes

Evidence

Judges may have broad discretion in resolving these more mundane disputes. Ordinarily, judges decide cases by applying the law. At times, however, society’s sense of justice cannot readily be reduced to precise rules, so the legislature merely announces a general standard and relies on judges to use their discretion to do justice on a case-by-case basis. … Sentencing in criminal cases illustrates this sort of cumulative policymaking. Until the imposition of sentencing guidelines (see Chapter 6), criminal law in the United States tended to define the minimum and maximum penalties for various offenses—for example, 5-10 years for armed robbery—but allowed the judge considerable discretion in sentencing within those guidelines. Although the sentence meted out to an individual offender does not establish policy, the overall pattern of sentencing in criminal cases does constitute important policymaking, because it reveals how the society regards various crimes. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2820

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines ‘cumulative policymaking’ through concrete examples of judicial discretion aggregated over cases.
• XREF: connects to: Aggregate judicial sentencing patterns constitute policy even when individual sentences do not. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1440; Criminal punishment patterns lack deterrence or retributive logic — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 710

Broader Connections

• Criminal punishment patterns lack deterrence or retributive logic #complicates (0.75) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 710