Let the Punishment Fit the Crime: Should Courts Exercise the Power of Appellate Sentence Review in Cases Involving Narcotics and Other Stigmatized Crimes?

Traditionally, appellate courts defer to criminal sentences within the statutory range established by the legislature for a particular offense. Throughout most of U.S. history, this deferral reflected the fact-finding role played by the trial judge who crafted the sentence. However, the legislature's role in determining sentence ranges requires rethinking the issue of substantive appellate sentence review. In a political climate that is "tough on crime, " legislatures continue to ramp up criminal penalties for newsworthy crimes such as narcotics violations, with the result that prison populations, and the taxpayer's bill, have skyrocketed. Appellate courts should exercise greater review powers in a democratically responsible way in order to curtail certain excessive sentences. To this end, this Comment recommends a framework to identify suitable cases for substantive sentence review. First, the appellate court should determine whether the crime has been politicized, such that the crime can be described as stigmatic. If so, the appellate court should then inquire as to whether the sentence is excessive. Under this proposal, a sentence is excessive ifit is more severe than that imposed for crimes of similar moral gravity. Finally, if a sentence is excessive, it should be judicially edited to reflect culpability, grounded by a desire to match the sentence to those imposed for morally equivalent offenses in the jurisdiction.