The Effect of \u3cem\u3eBlakely v. Washington\u3c/em\u3e on Upward Departures in a Sentencing Guideline State

One of the problems facing the criminal justice system is unwarranted disparity as a result of unbridled discretion. Although disparity, by itself, does not necessarily indicate a problem in the criminal justice system, disparity unwarranted does present a problem. Disparity becomes unwarranted when, controlling for legal factors, extralegal factors such as race/ethnicity, gender, and age influence court processing decisions. The greater the discretion one possesses, the higher the likelihood of unwarranted disparity in one’s decisions (Albonetti, 1991; Meeker, Jesilow, & Aranda, 1992; Bushway & Piehl, 2001). Within the criminal court system, judicial discretion in sentencing has received the most scrutiny

Counter Closure and Knowledge despite Falsehood

Certain puzzling cases have been discussed in the literature recently which appear to support the thought that knowledge can be obtained by way of deduction from a falsehood; moreover, these cases put pressure, prima facie, on the thesis of counter closure for knowledge. We argue that the cases do not involve knowledge from falsehood; despite appearances, the false beliefs in the cases in question are causally, and therefore epistemologically, incidental, and knowledge is achieved despite falsehood. We also show that the principle of counter closure, and the concomitant denial of knowledge from falsehood, is well motivated by considerations in epistemological theory--in particular, by the view that knowledge is first in the epistemological order of things