United States: Criminal Justice Reform At A Crossroads: U.S. Sentencing Commission Weighs In

What a difference six months makes. Earlier this year, it was widely reported that Congress was closer than ever to passing significant federal criminal sentencing reform on a wide bipartisan basis. Now, following the election of Donald Trump and the nomination of a vocal opponent of these reforms—Sen. Jeff Sessions— as Attorney General, optimism among proponents of criminal justice reform has been dramatically diminished, if not extinguished altogether. While some hold out the hope that conservative supporters of such reform (such as House Speaker Paul Ryan and maybe even Vice President-elect Mike Pence) may be able to bring a Trump administration around, most agree that at best criminal justice reform will be a low priority in the Executive Branch come January 20—even as overall national crime rates remain near historic lows.

Enter the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The creation of the Commission 30 years ago was itself seen as an act of dramatic reform of a system that was decried by Marvin Frankel, in his seminal work "Criminal Sentences— Law Without Order," as "a wild array of sentencing judgments without any semblance of consistency demanded by the ideal of equal justice." Since that time, the locus of power driving sentencing policy and severity has swung back and forth between Congress and the Commission (not to mention the Judiciary). We have seen over three decades that episodic bursts of more active involvement by the legislative branch too often have led to disproportionality and unfairness when it comes to criminal punishment. The overuse of mandatory minimum sentences and the overly severe punishment of crack cocaine-related offenses are now widely recognized as two examples of such excesses. They also exemplify the ways in which the politics of crime and punishment can lead to unwarranted disparities, including along racial lines. And while the federal system accounts for only about 10 percent of all who are imprisoned in this country, the overall U.S. incarceration numbers in the wake of these and other "tough on crime" policies are familiar but still jarring: over two million people in American prisons and jails, a disproportionate number of whom are young men of color, and representing close to onequarter of the imprisoned population of the entire world (even though we have less than 5 percent of the world's overall population). It is also estimated that well over 60 million Americans have criminal records and something like six million Americans are unable to vote due to state felony disenfranchisement statutes.

One of the virtues of a sentencing commission—an expert agency that follows a fact-based, deliberative process—should be that it is less subject to the shifting dynamics of the political branches, and more likely to dispassionately arrive at a rational and even-handed sentencing scheme. The Sentencing Commission of course cannot eliminate federal mandatory minimum sentences or directly reduce the length of such sentences. Congress enacted those laws—aiming them at drug kingpins, not the street-level dealers to whom they too often have been applied—and Congress must change them (as the Commission has urged it to do). Nor can the Commission expand the availability of the "safety valve" that can spare low-level, nonviolent federal offenders with zero or minimal criminal history from the harshness of five, 10 or 20-year mandatory minimum prison terms; that too must come from Congress (and the Commission has recommended this change as well).

But while the Commission's power is limited, it is far from powerless. And while Commission-driven change is incremental and too slow for many, the latest proposed amendments to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines— published on Dec. 9, 2016—show that, within the sphere of sentencing policy that it does control, the Commission continues to try to move the needle in the direction of a fairer and more reasonable sentencing system.

The first and perhaps most significant proposal, entitled "First Offenders/Alternatives to Incarceration," would permit and encourage a greater number of non-incarceratory sentences for the least culpable, non-recidivist federal offenders. This makes good sense, as it was Congress itself that directed the Commission, in 28 U.S.C. §994(j), to "insure that the guidelines reflect the general appropriateness of imposing a sentence other than imprisonment in cases in which the defendant is a first offender who has not been convicted of a crime of violence or an otherwise serious offense." The Commission's analysis shows that notwithstanding this directive, over the last decade courts trying to carry out the policies of the Guidelines have been imposing alternative sentences (including non-incarceratory sentences) with decreasing frequency. The proposed amendment is aimed at reversing that trend, and it comes in two parts. First, the Commission proposes to create a new guideline to "provide lower guideline ranges for 'first offenders' generally and increase the availability of alternatives to incarceration for such offenders at the lower level of the Sentencing Table." The second part would revise the Sentencing Table, consolidating Zones B and C, thereby expanding the number of defendants eligible for a probationary sentence.

The proposal appears to be based in significant part on empirical data showing that "first offenders" "generally pose the lowest risk of recidivism." Who qualifies as a "first offender" (e.g., What if a defendant has a misdemeanor that otherwise does not count in computing their criminal history?) and the extent of the reduction for those who do (whether it should be reduced one or two levels) are some of the issues on which the Commission is seeking public comment. However these details are resolved, if implemented the proposed amendment would for the first time advise sentencing courts that where the offense did not involve violence and a firsttime offender's guideline range is not above a certain level, "the court ordinarily should impose a sentence other than a sentence of imprisonment." In other words, the Commission is proposing to create a new category of non-recidivist, less serious, non-violent offenders for whom there would be a "rebuttable presumption" of no jail time.

Interestingly, the Commission also seeks comment on whether certain categories of non-violent offenses should be excluded from this "presumption," and provides as examples "public corruption, tax, and other white-collar offenses." This likely ties back to when the Guidelines were first promulgated, and the original Commission expressed the view that "courts sentenced to probation an inappropriately high percentage of offenders guilty of certain economic crimes, such as theft, tax evasion, antitrust offenses, insider trading, fraud and embezzlement." The Commission's solution at the time was to "write Guidelines that classify as serious many offenses for which probation was frequently given and provide for at least a short period of imprisonment in such cases." (U.S.S.G., Ch. 1, intro., pt. 4(d) (1987)). The notion was that "the definite prospect of prison" in such white-collar cases, "even though the term may be short, will serve as a significant deterrent." Whether the Commission will be prepared to walk back from that foundational principle with respect to first-time, less serious white-collar or economic offenders will be interesting to see (for more serious offenders, where the amount of loss is large and/or the corresponding offense level is high, the proposed first-time offender provision would not apply). The debate around whether to carve out white-collar offenses from any firsttime offender guideline may also be informed by the Commission's finding in its 2015 Alternative Sentencing report that white offenders received alternative sentences at higher rates than African-American and Hispanic offenders.

Coincidentally, on the very same day the Commission published this proposed amendment, NYU's Brennan Center for Justice released an important and detailed report entitled "How Many Americans are Unnecessarily Incarcerated?" The report's authors explain their goal as providing bold and concrete ideas for reducing the U.S. prison population without endangering public safety. The first recommendation, which both parallels and goes further than the Sentencing Commission's "first offender" proposal, is that state legislatures and Congress (not sentencing commissions) "should change sentencing laws to mandate" (not just allow or recommend) "alternatives to prison as the default sentences for certain lower-level crimes." Some might say this proposal would give the term "mandatory minimum" a whole new meaning! It is based in part on research showing that some defendants—especially lower-level offenders—may not be any more likely (and may even be less likely) to re-offend if they receive a nonincarceratory sentence compared to being sent to prison. According to the Brennan Center, the categories of lower-level criminals for which they are proposing mandatory nonprison alternatives could reach as many as 25 percent of the imprisoned population (or over 350,000 current inmates). While the mechanics are quite different, taken together the Sentencing Commission and Brennan Center proposals may signal an emerging consensus on a better way to handle less dangerous offenders without sacrificing public safety.

One other reform-minded amendment proposed by the Sentencing Commission would exclude juvenile sentences—for offenses committed prior to age 18—from the calculation of the defendant's criminal history score. According to Sentencing Commission Chair Patti Saris, this proposal emanates in part from "the growing adolescent brain development research and recent court decisions," no doubt a reference to recent Supreme Court rulings finding it unconstitutional in virtually all cases to sentence juveniles to life in prison without the prospect of parole.

To be clear, none of the Sentencing Commission's proposals represent monumental changes to the federal sentencing regime, and the number of defendants who actually would be impacted by the "first offender" proposal remains to be seen. A larger overhaul of the guidelines—for example, to reduce the over-emphasis on things like drug quantity and amount of loss, and increase the emphasis on motivations, personal gain, level of participation, and victim harm—appears to remain a long way off. But there is reason to be a little bit hopeful, as these most recent proposed amendments continue a trend of meaningful steps by the Commission toward a more balanced and fair sentencing process and to address the almost uniformly-acknowledged problem of over-incarceration. Indeed, as Judge Saris highlighted in her remarks, Commission-driven changes in the guidelines over the past several years have contributed to a decrease in the federal prison population from a peak of 219,298 in 2013 to a current level of 190,303, representing 28,995 fewer prisoners and a reduction of 13%.

The publication of the proposed 2017 Amendments also marks a changing of the guard at the Commission. Two commissioners, including Chair Saris, will soon be replaced. And while the process of appointing sentencing commissioners calls for political balance, the future of the Sentencing Commission—and the pace of progress toward a more measured and rational sentencing regime—are very much up for grabs. In the meantime, and for the foreseeable future, more significant and wider-impacting criminal justice reform is likely to be centered at the state and local levels, not in Congress or at the Sentencing Commission. Stay tuned.

Previously published New York Law Journal, Jan. 18, 2017.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.