The Debate Continues

Hofer and Rhodes share their opposing views on the Abt team's "Response to Paul Hofer." Hofer indicates that the earlier report did indeed use a different methodology to address different questions. In particular, it wasn't focused narrowly on possible disparity arising from judicial decisions, but pioneered a "what-if" analysis to examine the biggest source of disparity: the adverse impact of unjustified statutes and the guidelines linked to them. Not only does the new report not ask about the effects of mandatory minimums, it attributes some of their effects to judges. Rhodes opines that Hofer's observation is that the resulting recommended minimums aren't operative, and the judge is forced to sentence above the Guidelines' recommended minimum and even sometimes above the Guidelines' recommended maximum. He stresses that in the team's language the offender is still sentenced within the guideline cell.