Defendant Amenability to Treatment or Probation as a Basis for Departure under the Minnesota and Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Abstract

amenability to treatment.1 Courts rejecting such departures have concluded that sentencing under the guidelines should be based primarily on the offense, not the offender, and should give little weight to rehabilitative goals.2 Courts accepting such depar tures point out that the Sentencing Reform Act explicitly recognizes the relevance of offender characteristics and rehabilitative goals and that the Sentencing Commission has not ruled out such factors, at least in exceptional cases.3 In resolving these issues, Federal judges, attor neys and interested observers should consider the experience of states which have adopted sentencing guidelines. Minnesota's experience is of particular interest, since its guidelines have been in effect since 1980, and have generated a large body of appellate caselaw. Minnesota's Commission expressly premised its guidelines on a theory of just deserts.4 Despite this emphasis, appellate courts have repeat edly upheld the application of offender-based, treatment-oriented considerations?not only in choosing the sentence within the applicable guide lines range but also as a basis for departure. Minne sota's experience thus suggests that departures based on amenability to treatment or probation are compatible with a guideline scheme, even one based on retributive goals. This article describes the three leading Minnesota amenability departure cases, and then analyzes Federal cases which have accepted or rejected similar departures. It concludes that such departures?if limited to exceptional cases?are justified under both the Minnesota and the Federal guidelines. The comparison reveals identical theories of amenability, even though Minnesota and Federal courts never cite each other. This remarkable parallelism suggests that Federal and state judges have much to learn from each other's decisions.