Source: (2005) Marquette Law Review. 89(2):305-325.

Among skeptics of RJ, one of the standard answers is that we may sacrifice uniformity in sentencing.10 Broadly speaking, uniformity means that similarly situated offenders are sentenced similarly, while differently situated offenders are sentenced appropriately differently.11 Since the 1970’s, uniformity has emerged as a—perhaps the—leading objective of American sentencing systems.12 Accordingly, RJ advocates cannot afford to ignore claims that RJ is incompatible with uniformity.13 In this Essay, I aim to examine such claims in a more analytically rigorous fashion than has previously been attempted. (excerpt)

Read Full Article