Revista Volumen V - Academia Puertorriqueña de Jurisprudencia y ...

nothing more than a mechanistic computation to all but the most expert. 21 If in 1993 we nolonger trust central planners with our pocketbooks or our political liberties, what business havewe ceding to them administration of our criminal justice system?Justice may sometimes require more leniency than the Guidelines permit. It may sometimesrequire more severity. Justice, if submit, will always, however, require more nuance andflexibility than can be provided by a set of “guidelines” fashioned by a bureaucracy.21 This was recognized by the prison and sentencing reformers of twenty years ago, though this basic insight seems since to havebeen forgotten. As Norval Morris wrote, “until sentencing can become principled, until a jurisprudence of sentencing supportedby an ample common law and the articulation of criteria of punishment can be phrased and applied, the task of the penalreformer will remain intractable.” Normal Morris, The Future of Imprisonment 50 (1974). By these standards, the SentencingGuidelines are a scant improvement over the previous system. The simple provision of appellate review for discretionarysentencing decisions, however, would meet Morris’ criteria and a body of common law sentencing precedent would developmuch as it does with respect to other areas of the law.