Punishing Terrorists: A Re-Examination of U.S. Federal Sentencing in the Postguidelines Era

Abstract

The empirical literature on the theory and practice of sentencing politically motivated offenders such as terrorists in U.S. federal courts is limited. Thus, we know relatively little about the dealings between terrorist offenders and the criminal justice system or how these interactions may be influenced by changes in American legal or political context. This study summarizes previous findings relative to sentencing disparity among terrorists and nonterrorists in U.S. federal courts prior to the imposition of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. We then identify events occurring after the advent of the guidelines, including the early acts of terrorism on American soil. We evaluate the sentencing of terrorists versus nonterrorists following the confluence imposition of the guidelines and these events. We determine whether and how the sentencing disparity between terrorist and nonterrorist has changed since the implementation of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the terrorist events of the early 1990s. Based on our findings, we put forth suggestions as to the possible ways these conditions may have affected sentencing outcomes.