Chad Flanders


This argument is avowedly theoretical and normative. That is, this Article tries to determine what judges ought to do, not what they in fact do. Judges and attorneys may argue cost at sentencing hearings, and many of them do. That does not mean that they should be debating cost or basing sentencing decisions on it. I also am not concerned about whether, pragmatically, letting judges figure cost into their decisions might be a good thing overall, because it might lead to lower sentences. I put these concerns to one side, important as they may be as a practical matter. Instead, the Article questions: Ideally, what should sentencing look like? My answer is simple: Cost should be, at most, a marginal consideration in sentencing and should not be something that judges are urged to consider as a primary sentencing factor.

Included in

Law Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.