From the ancient origins of Just War doctrine to utilitarian and retributive theories of punishment, concepts of proportionality have long been an instrumental part of the rule of law and an essential check on government power. These concepts all embody the fundamental value that government and private actions should not be demonstrably excessive relative to their moral and practical justifications. In the American legal system, despite frequent though unacknowledged use of proportionality principles, there is no general theory of what permits courts to invalidate intrusive measures.
In Proportionality Principles in American Law, two renowned legal scholars seek to advance such a theory. They argue that standards of review should be more clearly and precisely defined, and that in most circumstances every intrusive government measure which limits or threatens individual rights should undergo some degree of proportionality review. Across a wide range of legal contexts, E. Thomas Sullivan and Richard S. Frase identify three basic ways that government measures and private remedies have been found to be disproportionate: relative to fault; relative to alternative means of achieving the same practical purposes; and relative to the likely practical benefits of the measure or remedy. Using this structure, the book examines the origins and contemporary uses of proportionality principles in public law, civil liberties, and the criminal justice system, emphasizing the utility of proportionality principles to guide judicial review of excessive government measures.
By constructing a new framework and a general theory for constitutional judicial review, Proportionality Principles in American Law will help courts more consistently and effectively apply proportionality principles to better serve their vital roles as guardians of individual rights and liberties.

All modern sentencing systems, in the US and beyond, consider the offender's prior record to be an important determinant of the form and severity of punishment for subsequent offences. Repeat offenders receive harsher punishments than first offenders, and offenders with longer criminal records are punished more severely than those with shorter records. Yet the vast literature on sentencing policy, law, and practice has generally overlooked the issue of prior convictions, even though this is the most important sentencing factor after the seriousness of the crime. In Paying for the Past, Richard S. Frase and Julian V. Roberts provide a critical and systematic examination of current prior record enhancements under sentencing guidelines across the US. Drawing on empirical data and analyses of guidelines from a number of jurisdictions, they illustrate different approaches to prior record enhancements and the differing outcomes of those approaches. Roberts and Frase demonstrate that most prior record enhancements generate a range of adverse outcomes at sentencing. Further, the pervasive justifications for prior record enhancement, such as the repeat offender's assumed higher risk of reoffending or greater culpability, are uncertain and have rarely been subjected to critical appraisal. The punitive sentencing premiums for repeat offenders prescribed by US guidelines cannot be justified on grounds of prevention or retribution. Shining a light on a neglected but critically important topic, Paying for the Past examines the costs of prior record enhancements for repeat offenders and offers model guidelines to help reduce racial disparities and reallocate criminal justice resources for jurisdictions who use sentence enhancements.

For most of the 20th Century, sentencing purposes and procedures were virtually the same in all American jurisdictions. The primary sentencing goal was rehabilitation, to be accomplished mostly in prison. To achieve this goal, judges and parole boards were given broad discretionary powers. In the 1970s, legal scholars and critics began to question such unfettered discretion, and to advocate for a system of prison-as-punishment, not as moral reeducation. Lawmakers began to experiment with mandatory penalties and other limits on sentencing discretion. These changes broke the previously uniform standard of sentencing in America. Today, sentencing purposes and procedures vary wildly between different state and federal jurisdictions. Our fragmented sentencing system has contributed to unprecedented increases in prison and jail inmate populations, disproportionately affecting racial minorities and creating a staggering drain on state budgets. The systems in most jurisdictions are disorganized, expensive, and unfair. We need a new vision, and a new way forward.
In Just Sentencing, Richard S. Frase offers a hybrid sentencing model that combines clearly-stated normative principles with procedures that have proven successful in practice. Frase advocates an expanded version of the theory of limiting retributivism, recognizing desert-based and other limits on sentence severity while accommodating crime control and other non-retributive punishment purposes. These principles are implemented with procedures based on the best state sentencing guidelines systems, including mandatory resource- and demographic-impact assessments, appellate review that preserves substantial trial court discretion, and abolition of parole release discretion. This book also shows how the core principles and procedures of the proposed model have been successfully implemented in several states, and endorsed in model sentencing codes and standards.
America currently lacks a comprehensive understanding of the purposes and limits of punishment. Just Sentencing offers us a cogent and urgently-needed solution for the incoherent and unsustainable American sentencing system.