•  
  •  
 

Cardozo Law Review

Abstract

This Article examines the legal doctrine of "sentencing manipulation," a claim, raised at the time of sentencing, in which the defendant argues that undercover police officers purposefully encouraged him to commit particular criminal conduct in order to expose him to a longer, and often mandatory, prison sentence. Currently, the claim of sentencing manipulation has no uniform definition or application and lacks a consistent animating theory. Based on traditional theories of punishment and the systemic interest in an accurate determination of a defendant's criminal culpability, this Article argues that inducements, used by undercover officers and their agents to encourage the suspect to commit particular criminal conduct, should be the central focus of a reformed sentencing manipulation doctrine. The sentencing manipulation doctrine as currently conceived fails to recognize the potential and problematic impact of police inducements on an assessment of a defendant's culpability. Moreover, current definitions of the claim reflect binary concerns of guilt versus innocence that, while perhaps appropriate for a claim made at trial, are inapposite for a claim made at the time of sentencing. In determining where to draw the line between police inducements that affect a defendant's culpability and those that do not, this Article also suggests a new way to view police conduct-on a continuum ranging from conduct that "facilitated culpability" to conduct that "overstated culpability." A reformed doctrine of sentencing manipulation, as proposed by this Article, appropriately directs courts' focus to inducements used by the police that result in the overstatement of a defendant's culpability, and to offense conduct that should therefore be removed from the sentencing calculus.

Disciplines

Criminal Law | Criminal Procedure | Law

Download

Share

COinS