The Feeney Frenzy: A Case Study in Actions and Reactions in the Politics of Sentencing

Abstract

Sentencing, as a product of the legislative, judicial and executive function, is highly politicized, often to the exclusion of objectively sound criminological principles. As David Garland has noted, “The politicization of crime control has transformed the structure of relationships that connect the political process and the institutions of criminal justice. . . . This constitutes a sharp reversal of the historical process whereby the power to punish was largely delegated to professional experts and administrators.” The politics of sentencing at the federal level have engendered legislative and executive changes that undercut the measured progression of modern sentencing reform. The crisis du jour was prompted by enactment of an amendment to the PROTECT Act introduced by Tom Feeney, a freshman member of Congress from Florida. Feeney’s freshman rites of initiation came when, without any criminal justice experience, he was chosen to sponsor an amendment to the PROTECT Act which sought to change radically provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act. Little did this novice Congressman realize that “his” amendment would render many Article III judges apoplectic and threaten the independence of the judiciary. The Feeney Amendment to the PROTECT Act exemplifies the dichotomy between enlightened sentencing reform and contemporary political trends.