Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Structural contradictions and the United States Sentencing Commission

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research is a case study of criminal justice policy formation involving the development of federal sentencing guidelines for business organizations by the United States Sentencing Commission. It describes the decision-making process of the Commission and the influence of other groups and individuals on the process, and recounts their actions within the framework of structural contradictions theory. In the case of the federal sentencing guidelines, it is demonstrated that representatives of business opposed any legislation that was meant to limit the power of corporations or sanction the actions of their representatives, and therefore placed pressure on members of the Commission to eliminate or minimize such sanctions. The study confirms that the state, in an effort to foster the continued capital accumulation necessary for a healthy economy, acknowledged capitalist provisos and at least partially submitted to them during the development of the guidelines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amenta, E. and M.P. Young, “Democratic States and Social Movements: Theoretical Arguments and Hypotheses,” Social Problems 1999, 46,2, 153–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, D.E. and M.H. Barlow, “Federal Criminal Justice Legislation and the Post-World War II Social Structure of Accumulation in the United States,” Crime, Law and Social Change 1995, 22, 239–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, D.E., M.H. Barlow and T.G. Chiricos, “Long Economic Cycles and the Criminal Justice System in the U.S.,” Crime, Law and Social Change 1993, 19, 143–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, D.E., M.H. Barlow and W.W. Johnson, “The Political Economy of Criminal Justice Policy: A Time-Series Analysis of Economic Conditions, Crime and Federal Criminal Justice Legislation,” Justice Quarterly 1996, 13,2, 223–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, P.M., “House Democrats assail Justice Agency over Sentencing for Corporate Crime,” The Wall Street Journal 1990A, May 25, p. A18.

  • Barrett, P.M., “Corporate Criminals Face Stiffer Federal Fines under Sentencing Guidelines expected for 1991,” The Wall Street Journal 1990b, December 11, p. A20.

  • Barrett, P.M., “Legal Beat: Supreme Court Nominee wins Business's Approval,” The Wall Street Journal 1994, May 16, p. B1.

  • Barrett, P.M. and W. Lambert, “Justice Department withdraws Support on Sentencing,” The Wall Street Journal 1990, April 30, p. B5.

  • Barrett, P.M. and A. Stevens, “Corporate Sentencing Plan faces Hurdles,” The Wall Street Journal 1991, April 29, p. B4.

  • Birnbaum, J.H. and P.M. Barrett, “Clinton Queries Senators on Babbitt: Breyer also on Short List for High Court,” The Wall Street Journal 1994, May 11, p. A2.

  • Block, M.K. and J.R. Lott, Jr., “Is Curbing Crime Worth the Cost?,” The New York Times 1991, May 5, p. F13.

  • Bluestone, B. and B. Harrison, The industrialization of America: Plant Closings Community Abandonment, and the Dismantling of Basic Industry, (New York: Basic Books, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, S., D.M. Gordon and T.E. Weisskopf, Beyond the Waste Land: A Democratic Alternative to Economic Decline, (Garden City, New York: Anchor Press, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • Calavita, K., “The Contradictions of Immigration Lawmaking: The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986,” in W.J. Chambliss and M.S. Zatz (eds.), Making Law: The State, the Law, and Structural Contradictions, pp. 229–260, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, S.M. and R.J. Michalowski, “Crime, Unemployment, and Social Structures of Accumulation,” Justice Quarterly 1997, 14,2, 209–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambliss, W.J., “On Lawmaking,” in W.J. Chambliss and M.S. Zatz (eds.), Making Law: The State, the Law, and Structural Contradictions, pp. 3–35, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chanen, D., “U.S. Appeals Judge George MacKinnon, of St. Paul, dies at 89,” Minneapolis Star Tribune 1995, May 3, p. 6B.

  • Chung, C.C. and M. Szenberg, “The Effects of Deregulation on the U.S. Airline Industry,” Journal of Applied Business Research 1996, 12,3, 133–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffee, J.C., R. Gruner, Jr. and C. Stone, “Draft Proposal on Standards for Organizational Probation,” in Discussion Materials on Organizational Sanctions, pp. 1–43, (Y3.SE5:2SA5), (Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M.A., “Corporate Crime and Punishment: A Study of Social Harm and Sentencing Practice in the Federal Courts, 1984–1987,” The American Criminal Law Review 1989, 26,3, 605–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domhoff, G.W., Who Rules America Now? A View for the '80s, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A., “The U.S. Sentencing Commission on Corporate Crime: A Critique,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 1993, 525, 147–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • “Fellowship Opportunities at the National Institute of Justice,” National Criminal Justice Reference Service 1999, [On-line]. Available: http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/fellow.

  • Fenyvesi, C., “Corporate Cop-Out? Corporate Criminals to Face Tougher Fines,” U.S. News & World Report 1991, June 17, 110,23, 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisse, B., “Sentencing Options against Corporations,” Criminal Law Forum 1990, 1,2, 211–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geyelin, M., “Dalkon Shield Trust Draws Fire for Hiring Ex-Lawyer for Robins,” The Wall Street Journal 1991, November 12, p. B5.

  • Gordon, D.M., R. Edwards and M. Reich, Segmented Work, Divided Workers: The Historical Transformation of Labor in the United States, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, B. and B. Bluestone, The Great U-Turn: Corporate Restructuring and the Polarization of America, (New York: Basic Books, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochstetler, A.L. and N. Shover, “Street Crime, Labor Surplus, and Criminal Punishment, 1980–1990,” Social Problems 1997, 44,3, 358–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, J. and J. Austin, It's about Time: America's Imprisonment Binge, 2nd ed., (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, D., “Thornburgh again Supports Stiffer Corporate Sentences,” The New York Times 1990, October 17, p. A24.

  • Johnston, D., “Congress gets Sentence Guide on Corporate Crime,” The New York Times 1991, April 28, p. A15.

  • Lanier, M.M. and S. Henry, Essential Criminology, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Laufer, W.S., “Culpability and the Sentencing of Corporations,” Nebraska Law Review 1992, 71,4, 1049–1094.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, C., “Tribute to Judge MacKinnon,” Cong. Rec. S-10324, 1995.

  • Lilly, J.R., F.T. Cullen and R.A. Ball, Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences, 2nd ed., (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lofquist, W.S., “Legislating Organizational Probation: State Capacity, Business Power, and Corporate Crime Control,” Law and Society Review 1993, 27,4, 741–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M.J. and W.B. Groves, A Primer in Radical Criminology, (New York: Harrow and Heston, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • “Make it hurt,” The Economist 1991, 319,7705, 71–72.

  • Marble, M., “Dalkon Trust sends out Last Offers; Will Review Late Claims,” Women's Health Weekly 1995, March 13, N, 5–6.

  • Marcus, R., “‘Disarray’ at Sentencing Commission: GAO Study Questions Panel's Ability to Assess New Guidelines,” The Washington Post 1990, March 8, p. A25.

  • Mauro, T., “If Confirmed, He'll be Richest Justice,” USA Today 1994, July 12, p. A6.

  • McGarrell, E.F. and T.C. Castellano, “Social Structure, Crime, and Politics: A Conflict Model of the Criminal Law Formation Process,” in W.J. Chambliss and M.S. Zatz (eds.), Making Law: The State, the Law, and Structural Contradictions, pp. 347–378, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalowski, R.J., “The Contradictions of Corrections: An Inquiry into Nested Dilemmas,” in W.J. Chambliss and M.S. Zatz (eds.), Making Law: The State, the Law, and Structural Contradictions, pp. 87–108, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalowski, R.J. and S.M. Carlson, “Unemployment, Imprisonment, and Social Structures of Accumulation: Historical Contingency in the Rusche-Kirchheimer Hypothesis,” Criminology 1999, 37,2, 217–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J.G., Search and Destroy: African-American Males in the Criminal Justice System, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J.M., “Designing funded Qualitative Research,” in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 220–235, (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, D.B., “U.S. Sentencing Commission fitting Punishments to Crimes,” The Washington Post 1991, January 7, p. 15.

  • Nagel, I., “Writing the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,” in Just Punishments: Federal Guidelines and Public Views Compared, pp. 19–32, (New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J.S., “Staff Working Paper on Criminal Sentencing Policy for Organizations,” in Discussion Materials on Organizational Sanctions, pp. 1–66, (Y3.SE5:2SA5), (Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasztor, A. and G.F. Seib, “Wilkins withdraws as a Candidate for Top FBI Post,” The Wall Street Journal 1987, July 13, p. 1.

  • Phillips, K., The Politics of Rich and Poor: Wealth and the American Electorate in the Reagan Aftermath, (New York: Harper Perennial, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Piven, F.F. and R.A. Cloward, Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare, (New York: Vintage Books, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  • Piven, F.F. and R.A. Cloward, Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail, (New York: Vintage Books, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • Piven, F.F. and R.A. Cloward, The New Class War: Reagan's Attack on the Welfare State and its Consequences, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiman, J., The Rich Get Richer and the Poor get Prison: Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice, 5th ed., (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rist, R.C., “Influencing the Policy Process with Qualitative Research,” in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 545–557, (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • “Soon, Corporate Crime May Really Not Pay,” Business Week 1990, February 12, 3145, 35.

  • Stake, R.E., “Case Studies,” in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 236–247, (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • “State and Federal Sentencing Guidelines: What's Working? What Isn't?,” Judicature 1995, 78,4, 207–214.

  • Tonry, M., “The Politics and Processes of Sentencing Commissions,” Crime & Delinquency 1991, 37,3, 307–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • “Tough Corporate Sentencing Guidelines Stir Ire,” Corporate Board 1991, 12,66, 28.

  • “Two Vacancies are Filled on Dalkon Shield Board,” The Wall Street Journal 1989, July 10, p. 1.

  • United States Sentencing Commission, Annual report, (Y3.SE5:1/988), (Washington, DC: Author, 1988a).

  • United States Sentencing Commission, “Discussion Draft of Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements for Organizations,” in Discussion Materials on Organizational Sanctions, pp. 8.1–8.47, i–iv, (Y3.SE5:2SA5), (Washington, DC: Author, 1988b).

  • United States Sentencing Commission, Discussion Materials on Organizational Sanctions, (Y3.SE5:2SA5), (Washington, DC: Author, 1988c).

  • United States Sentencing Commission, Annual Report, (Y3.SE5.1/989), (Washington, DC: Author, 1989).

  • United States Sentencing Commission, Annual Report, (Y3.SE5:1/990), (Washington, DC: Author, 1990a).

  • United States Sentencing Commission, Public Hearing: Sentencing Guidelines for Organizational Defendants, (Y3.SE5:14–990/2/14), (Washington, DC: Author, 1990b).

  • United States Sentencing Commission, Public Hearing on Sentencing Guidelines for Organizational Defendants, (Y3SE5:14–990/12/13), (Washington, DC: Author, 1990c).

  • United States Sentencing Commission, Annual Report, (Y3.SE5:1/991), (Washington, DC: Author, 1991a).

  • United States Sentencing Commission, The New Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizational Crimes: Questions and Answers, 1991b, [On-line]. Available: http://www.ussc.gov/sitemap.htm.

  • United States Sentencing Commission, Supplementary Report on Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations, (Y3.SE5:80R3), (Washington, DC: Author, 1991c).

  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, (Washington, DC: Author, 1998).

  • Walker, S., Popular Justice: A History of American Criminal Justice, 2nd ed., (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wermiel, S. and M. Brannigan, M., “Sentencing Panel Puts Off Debate on Guidelines for Corporate Fines,” The Wall Street Journal 1990, April 11, p. B3.

  • Wermiel, S. and L.P. Cohen, “Proposal on Corporate Sentencing Softened,” The Wall Street Journal 1990, March 30, p. B2.

  • Whitt, J.A., “Toward a Class-Dialectical Model of Power: An Empirical Assessment of Three Competing Models of Political Power,” in W.J. Chambliss and M.S. Zatz (eds.), Making Law: The State, the Law, and Structural Contradictions, pp. 261–289, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, W.W., Jr., “No ‘Disarray’ at Sentencing Commission,” [Letter to the editor], The Washington Post 1990, March 22, p. A22.

  • Wonders, N.A. and F.I. Solop, “Understanding the Emergence of Law and Public Policy: Toward a Relational Model of the State,” in W.J. Chambliss and M.S. Zatz (eds.), Making Law: The State, the Law, and Structural Contradictions, pp. 204–225, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Irvine, CA, 92612, USA

    Laurie J. Rodriguez

  2. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, WI, 53201, USA

    David E. Barlow

Authors
  1. Laurie J. Rodriguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David E. Barlow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rodriguez, L.J., Barlow, D.E. Structural contradictions and the United States Sentencing Commission. Crime, Law and Social Change 32, 169–202 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008393510266

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008393510266

Keywords

Search

Navigation