Still more baby mama perspectives, this time from Marquette University professor of law Michael O'Hear (one of whose scholarly specialities is sentencing law and policy). Very interesting stuff.
Of course, had the court of appeals imported into its decision the social sciences literature that Prof. O'Hear mentions, some observers would have thrown a hairy fit on those grounds alone.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the courts doing that — so long as it's empirically sound — and neither did the framers of the federal sentencing guidelines, as Prof. O'Hear demonstrates.
The body of law should, and does, evolve. I'm amused by those who deride the strawman of "living Constitution proponents." The text of the Constitution may not change, but when it finds application in a changing and (hopefully) maturing society, those results may vary.
Not because the Constitution has changed, but because we have.