The Article first provides an overview of the history and prevailing motivations behind the promulgation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Then, using the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as an illustrative example, the Article contends that, notwithstanding the supposed “far-reaching” implications of both Blakely and Booker, the judiciary's continued reliance on the “advisory” Guidelines has practically changed federal sentencing procedures very little in form or function. For a contrasting response to Booker, the Article thereafter examines the State of Maine's sentencing scheme and its response to the Supreme Court's Booker/Blakely decisions. By arguing that Maine's sentencing procedure reflects a commonsense approach to sentencing by affording substantial discretion to sentencing courts within the confines of a determinate sentencing system, the Article concludes by advocating a revision to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to reflect a mixed determinate/indeterminate sentencing system.
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/brian_gallini/2/