The sentencing, including the determination of the facts based on which it is determined, falls within the courts' exclusive jurisdiction; it is determined by the so-called common law's interpretation and application. There could be errors in the interpretation and application of common law relevant to fundamental rights, arbitrary court decisions, the intensity of the encroachment on fundamental law (usually as a supplementary aspect), and the administration of justice.

Court managers should gather information on the most critical steps in the judicial process. They should keep records of the time that elapses between these steps. Concerning the steps to be followed, due attention should be paid to the Time Management Checklist. All the information gathered should be available to inform court administrators, judges, and central judicial authorities. This information should also be made available to parties and the general public in an appropriate form.

I am not sure if I understand your question, but the aim of law is that the outcome should be predictable. If it is not predicable, then it can contribute to discretionary abuse and a lack of understanding of what to expect in terms of societal reactions to misconduct and what is appropriate conduct. The guidelines eliminate discretion, which contributed to abuses in sentences selected because judges had increased ranges to select from. This could lead to the introduction of other biases in the sentencing process as well.

The guidelines are sometimes referred to as presumptive sentencing frameworks. The presumptive sentence in the guidelines is what the ordinary offense warrants that is without mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The mitigating circumstances if proven to the satisfaction of the judge would result in a sentencing discount. The converse is true for the presence of aggravating circumstances---an enhanced sentence. In the U.S., prosecutors have greater discretion to negotiate with counsel a plea to a lesser charge to avoid trial based on the guidelines for the lesser charge. The discretion is now in the hands of the prosecutor. I hope I answered your question. The guidelines are not abused by offenders, but the ranges and established penalties can be unfair based on the penalties selected by legislators for specific crimes. And prosecutors can apply different rules in exercising their discretion, which is where most abuses occur.

The sentencing, including the determination of the facts based on which it is determined, falls within the courts' exclusive jurisdiction; it is determined by the so-called common law's interpretation and application. There could be errors in the interpretation and application of common law relevant to fundamental rights, arbitrary court decisions, the intensity of the encroachment on fundamental law (usually as a supplementary aspect), and the administration of justice.

Court managers should gather information on the most critical steps in the judicial process. They should keep records of the time that elapses between these steps. Concerning the steps to be followed, due attention should be paid to the Time Management Checklist. All the information gathered should be available to inform court administrators, judges, and central judicial authorities. This information should also be made available to parties and the general public in an appropriate form.