Abstract
The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 fundamentally altered federal sentencing by introducing the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines to establish consistency and serve as a check to judicial discretion. Yet, over four decades later, those same guidelines are increasingly criticized for their perpetuation of disparities and failure to reflect the individualized characteristics of their offenders and their potential for rehabilitation. While the First Step Act of 2018 aimed to modernize federal sentencing, it remains largely incomplete due to the Act’s hasty rollout and the lack of high quality, empirically grounded tools that can guide the federal sentencing system more effectively. This Note argues that the next phase of sentencing reform should include the incorporation of Risk Assessment System instruments and scores into federal sentencing determinations. Drawing on the Ohio Risk Assessment System (“ORAS”) as a blueprint, applying its empirical methodology, structured framework, and emphasis on dynamic risk factors can help build a federal system that balances individualized justice with objectivity.
Recommended Citation
Hadi Akbik,
THE QUEST FOR OBJECTIVITY IN A WORLD OF DISCRETION: HOW THE OHIO RISK ASSESSMENT SYSTEM CAN SERVE AS A BLUEPRINT TO OVERHAUL THE SENTENCING REFORM ACT AND FIRST STEP ACT,
34 J. L. & Pol'y
131
(2025).
Available at:
https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp/vol34/iss1/6