Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:44 am
Time: 12:44 am
Results for sentencing guidelines
22 results foundAuthor: Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission Title: 20 Years in Sentencing: A Look at Washington State Adult Felony Sentencing Fiscal Years 1989 to 2008 Summary: In 1981, the Washington State Legislature enacted the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA), creating the Sentencing Guidelines Commission (SGC). The SGC met to develop a structured sentencing system designed to further the purposes of the SRA, as stated in RCW 9.94A.010: The purpose of this chapter is to make the criminal justice system accountable to the public by developing a system for the sentencing of felony offenders which structures, but does not eliminate, discretionary decisions affecting sentences, and to: (1) Ensure that the punishment for a criminal offense is proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and the offender's criminal history; (2) Promote respect for the law by providing punishment which is just; (3) Be commensurate with the punishment imposed on others committing similar offenses; (4) Protect the public; (5) Offer the offender an opportunity to improve him or herself; (6) Make frugal use of the state's and local governments' resources; and (7) Reduce the risk of reoffending by offenders in the community. Upon adoption of the new determinate sentencing system, the SGC was assigned ongoing responsibilities in RCW 9.94A.850. “The legislature finds that the commission, having accomplished its original statutory directive to implement this chapter, and having expertise in sentencing practice and policies, shall: (a) Evaluate state sentencing policy, to include whether the sentencing ranges and standards are consistent with and further: (i) The purposes of this chapter as defined in RCW 9.94A.010; and (ii) The intent of the legislature to emphasize confinement for the violent offender and alternatives to confinement for the nonviolent offender.” This report is offered in response to these statutory directives. Throughout the more than two decades of the existence of the SRA in Washington, two features have remained constant; the Legislature has retained its “plenary power” to set sentencing policy and, with the single exception of the “Determinate Plus” sentences for serious sex offenders, it has maintained the original structure of the SRA to implement the changes in sentencing policy it determined were necessary. However, a number of adjustments to sentencing have been adopted by the Legislature. These policy changes, along with population increases and citizen initiatives, have impacted the number and length of felony sentences. Like other states, Washington has seen an explosion in corrections costs in the last twenty years. On the one hand, Washington is spending far less than most other states. On the other hand, the number of prison sentences has increased at a rate four times that of the adult population in Washington. This report examines trends in jail and prison sentence numbers for adult felony convictions, lengths of prison and jail sentences and factors that contribute to change in sentence characteristics. It is a comprehensive review of what has or has not changed in the realm of criminal felony sentencing in this state. It is intended to be useful to county and state policymakers, bearing in mind that the majority of felony sentences are served in county jails. This analysis provides the foundation for a review of sentencing in light of the expressed intent of the SRA. Adult felony sentence data maintained by the SGC were used to develop this report and include a twenty‐year time period from FY1989 to FY2008. The numbers of sentences referenced in this report are as of May 2009. These are subject to change as missing sentencing data becomes available. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2010. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2011 at: http://www.sgc.wa.gov/Publications/Research/TwentyYearsInSentencing_WASentenceTrends.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.sgc.wa.gov/Publications/Research/TwentyYearsInSentencing_WASentenceTrends.pdf Shelf Number: 121677 Keywords: Determinate SentencingFelony OffendersPunishmentSentencing (Washington State)Sentencing Guidelines |
Author: Northern Ireland Assembly. Research and Information Service Title: Comparative Research into Sentencing Guidelines Mechanisms Summary: The Hillsborough Agreement in 2010 contained a commitment to establish a sentencing guidelines council. Recently the Department of Justice (DOJ) published a consultation document “Consultation on a Sentencing Guidelines Mechanism”, which sets out three options for a sentencing guidelines body: an independent sentencing guidelines council with a statutory remit for producing guidelines; an independent sentencing advisory panel with a statutory remit to draft guidelines for approval of the Court of Appeal; and a judicial oversight committee known as a Sentencing Group to be established by the Lord Chief Justice. This paper provides information on comparative sentencing guidelines mechanisms in a number of jurisdictions including England and Wales, Scotland, Republic of Ireland, Australia, Canada, Minnesota, US (federal level), New Zealand (legislated for but not established), South Africa (proposed but not legislated for), Germany, France and the Netherlands. The paper examines a number of issues to be considered in establishing a guidelines body: the objectives of sentencing guidelines bodies, their functions, format of guidelines, membership and structure and relationships with other institutions and alternatives to sentencing guidelines bodies. Sentencing guidelines bodies in England and Wales and as legislated for in Scotland have similar objectives to those proposed for Northern Ireland. In some jurisdictions concerns have been raised about increases in prison population, including in England and Wales, New Zealand, South Africa and Minnesota. Therefore some bodies have objectives in relation to the management of prison resources. In England and Wales, the Sentencing Council must conduct must publish a resource assessment in respect of the guidelines to include information on the likely impact of the guidelines on prison places and contain information in its annual report on sentencing factors including an assessment by the Council on changes in sentencing practice likely to have an effect on prison resources. Sentencing bodies carry out a range of functions including: drafting guidelines, public education, information dissemination and resources functions. In England and Wales other functions include publishing resources assessment in respect of guidelines and monitoring the operation and effect of guidelines. Some bodies have functions beyond sentencing matters; for example bodies in Australia and New Zealand have functions relating to parole matters. Other bodies have functions in relation to the development of legislation and crime policy such as bodies in the United States. This paper outlines how the format of guidelines may differ. Guidelines in England and Wales are described as narrative in nature; legislation sets out how guidelines should be structured including: different categories of offence illustrating degrees of seriousness, factors including the offenders culpability and harm caused, the range of offences and starting points in the offence range. In contrast, the mechanism used in some of the United States models has been described as numerical. Minnesota operates a grid system includes two axes; one axis takes into account the seriousness of the offence and the other takes into account the offender‟s criminal record. The point where the seriousness of the offence and criminal history intersect determines the range of the offender‟s sentence. The numerical models have been criticised for impacting on judicial discretion. Sentencing guidelines bodies examined in this paper vary in membership, for example in size and in the composition of judicial and non judicial members. Some models such as the Sentencing Council in England and Wales have a greater number of judicial members. Scotland has legislated for a balance of judicial/non-judicial membership. Some sentencing bodies in Australia have no judicial representation. Furthermore some sentencing bodies in Australia and as proposed in New Zealand sentencing body have representatives with experience of working with particular groups, for example indigenous or ethnic minority groups. The DOJ proposes that members will be appointed for a fixed non renewable term. This is the same as the position in Scotland, however some models allow for a renewal of membership for example in the New Zealand and South Africa models. In its consultation document, the DOJ has proposed a secretariat to support a Northern Ireland body carry out its functions. Most of the bodies examined in this paper are supported by a secretariat with various support functions including legal expertise, research and analysis, community engagement and administration functions. The Scottish Government in its policy consultation paper outlined a relationship between the Scottish Sentencing Council and the Scottish Court Service in the provision of IT support. Consideration may need to be given to staff such as IT support services in a Northern Ireland model. The paper considers relationships between a sentencing guidelines mechanism and other institutions such as courts. The consultation document does not make reference to a relationship with the Northern Ireland Assembly but does set out a proposed relationship between the council and the Justice Minister. Some of models examined have relationships with their respective legislatures in approving or vetoing guidelines, for example in New Zealand and in Minnesota. Interestingly, the House of Commons Justice Select Committee has a role in the scrutiny of guidelines. An example of the scrutiny role is the holding of inquiries into draft sentencing guidelines. Some of the bodies have direct relationships with the courts. For example guidelines may have to be approved by courts or the courts may propose the drafting of guidelines. In Victoria the Court has to notify the sentencing advisory body when issuing a guidelines judgment. In the consultation document, the DOJ has highlighted that courts will be under a duty „to have regard to‟ sentencing guidelines and state reasons if a sentence differs from a guideline this was the previous position in England and Wales and is the current position in Scotland. Some models appear to have more robust “departure tests” such as in England and Wales where the courts must follow guidelines unless satisfied it is contrary to the interests of justice to do so. There are some jurisdictions that do not have sentencing guidelines. For example in some jurisdictions such as Germany, France, Netherlands and Canada, sentencing matters are set out in Penal or Criminal Codes or in Ireland where some offences in criminal law set out minimum sentences. It should be noted that in the Netherlands, the Penal Code does not impose limits on the type or severity of sanctions that can be imposed enabling judges to exercise discretion in sentencing matters. In Canada, the Criminal Code makes provision for principles and purposes of sentencing and establishes mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment in a range of offences. It has been suggested that the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002) in Canada goes some way to introducing sentencing guidelines into legislation as it contains a range of sentences that can be imposed on juveniles. In the Republic of Ireland, judges largely have discretion in sentencing matters, except for some offences which carry maximum and in some cases minimum penalties. Another approach is the use of sentencing information systems. The judiciary in the Republic of Ireland have developed a pilot project, the Irish Sentencing Information System (ISIS) is a website which provides information to judges on sentencing practices in criminal proceedings. The value of such systems has been noted with benefits including judicial sentencing authority, discretion and transparency. However in response to a recent discussion paper in the Republic of Ireland on the White Paper on crime, some concerns have been raised regarding the re-enforcement of questionable practices if used long term. The future of this mechanism is uncertain as the development of the website has resource implications and it has been acknowledged this will need to be considered in the current financial climate. The issue of sentencing guidelines has been the subject to consultation in recent white paper in which submissions favoured sentencing guidelines as a means to addressing perceived inconsistencies in sentencing practices. It remains to be seen whether a formal system of sentencing guidelines will be introduced. Details: Belfast: Northern Ireland Assembly, 2011. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2011 at: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/researchandlibrary/2011/6611.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/researchandlibrary/2011/6611.pdf Shelf Number: 122031 Keywords: JudgesJudicial DiscretionSentencing Guidelines |
Author: Prison Reform Trust Title: Old Enough To Know Better? A briefing on young adults in the criminal justice system in England & Wales Summary: This briefing by the Out of Trouble programme, a five year campaign run by the Prison Reform Trust, to reduce the number of children and young people in prison, highlights the reforms needed to address the issue of 18- to 20-year-olds in the criminal justice system. According to the briefing, while 18- to 25-year-olds make up one in ten of the population as a whole, they account for a third of those sent to prison each year. Nearly two thirds of young people released from custody in the first quarter of 2008 reoffended within the year. The report argues that the criminal system is both failing to divert young men and women from falling into a pattern of offending in the first place, and then doing little to help them turn their lives around when they do. For the sake of future victims of crime, it argues, a more focused and intensive approach to rehabilitating young offenders in this age group is needed. The briefing calls on the government to build in its decision to reprieve the Youth Justice Board and apply its multi-agency approach to young adults as well as children, and makes a series of recommendations, including: introducing a robust community sentence, tailored to the specific needs of this age group; diverting first-time and low-level offenders out of the criminal justice system through the use of restorative pre-court disposal similar to the Youth Restorative Disposal; expanding the age-remit of youth offending teams (YOTs) to engage with 18-20 year-olds; developing sentencing guidelines specific to young adults; establishing specialist services for young adults both in the community and in prison that reduce alcohol and drug misuse as drivers to crime; ensuring that the new diversion and liaison schemes at police stations and courts are equipped to respond to the particular needs of young men and young women with mental health problems or learning difficulties and learning disabilities. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2012. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 27, 2012 at http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/OldEnoughToKnowBetter.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/OldEnoughToKnowBetter.pdf Shelf Number: 123838 Keywords: Juvenile Detention (U.K.)Juvenile Diversion (U.K.)Juvenile Inmates (U.K.)Offender RehabilitationSentencing Guidelines |
Author: International Drug Policy Consortium Title: TNI-IDPC-Sentencing Council: Expert Seminar on Proportionality of Sentencing for Drug Offences Summary: The Expert Seminar on Proportionality of Sentencing for Drug Offences was an initiative of the Transnational Institute working together with the International Drug Policy Consortium (‘IDPC’) and co-hosted by the Sentencing Council of England and Wales. The seminar was funded by the European Commission and the Open Society Institute and took place in London, England in May 2011. This seminar is the third in a series of expert discussions on drug policy designed to feed into moments of opportunity for policy and law reform at national and international level with detailed technical analysis and through examples of best-practice from across different jurisdictions. The moment of opportunity in this case was the Sentencing Council’s consultation on sentencing for drug offences which is due to produce definitive sentencing guidelines for England and Wales in the next year. A total of 31 people attended and comprised a mixture of domestic and international policy officials, the judiciary, and practitioners as well as representatives from non-governmental organisations and academic institutions. Four themes were covered over the course of the day: proportionality, the International Human Rights Perspective; the UK Experience and Consultation on Sentencing for Drug Offences; the Concept of Proportionality with a Focus on Different Levels of Involvement in Drug Offences; and drug ‘mules.’ Details: London: International Drug Policy Consortium, 2011. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2012 at http://www.idpc.net/sites/default/files/library/IDPC-TNI%20Proportionality%20Report%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.idpc.net/sites/default/files/library/IDPC-TNI%20Proportionality%20Report%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 124198 Keywords: Drug PolicyDrug TraffickingHuman RightsSentencing Guidelines |
Author: Osler, Mark Title: Amoral Numbers and Narcotics Sentencing Summary: Americans are fascinated with lists and rankings. Magazines catch the eye with covers promising “92 Cute Summer Looks,” college football fans anxiously await the release of pre-season rankings, and law schools have reshaped themselves in reaction to the rankings released by U.S. News and World Report. With each of these, though, the lists often do more to create a reality than to reflect one, with distinct negative effects. The same problem plagues federal narcotics sentencing, where rankings of the relative seriousness of crimes are embedded in sentencing guidelines and minimum sentences required by statutes, though they are rooted neither in empirical evidence nor a consistent theory of problem-solving. Details: Minneapolis: University of St. Thomas School of Law, 2013. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: U of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper No. 13-21: Accessed June 3, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2271380 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2271380 Shelf Number: 128920 Keywords: Drug OffendersPunishmentSentencing GuidelinesWar on Drugs |
Author: Yalincak, Orhun Hakan Title: Critical Analysis of Acquitted Conduct Sentencing in the U.S.: 'Kafka-Esque', 'Repugnant', 'Uniquely Malevolent' and 'Pernicious'? Summary: The use of acquitted at sentencing is a highly contested practice in sentencing theory and policy. In federal court and many state courts across the United States, once a defendant is convicted, judges are routinely permitted, in fact, required to increase a defendant’s sentence based on relevant conduct, of which he was acquitted at trial, or conduct for which he was never charged. This essay highlights the issues that arise from the use of acquitted conduct sentencing under the now advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The use of acquitted conduct under the relevant conduct provisions of the Guidelines has resulted in substantially longer prison sentences with a disparate impact on racial and ethnic minorities. Acquitted conduct sentencing treats the offence admitted by a defendant, or proven to a judge or jury’s satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt as simply a starting point in calculating a defendant’s sentence; the modified real offense approach, which incorporates relevant conduct and mandates consideration of acquitted conduct, determines the end sentence. This essay concludes that use of acquitted conduct should be prohibited both on constitutional and normative grounds. While it is outside the scope of this essay to offer a comprehensive solution or alternative to the use of acquitted conduct at sentencing, the key observation is that, since the common thread linking the constitutional and normative issues arise from the fragmented nature of U.S. sentencing policy, the solution must start with re-conceptualizing the theories underlying sentencing in the U.S. Details: Unpublished paper: 2013. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 6, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2293449 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2293449 Shelf Number: 129563 Keywords: JuriesPunishmentSentencing (U.S.)Sentencing Guidelines |
Author: United States Sentencing Commission Title: Recidivism Among Offenders Receiving Retroactive Sentence Reductions: The 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment Summary: In 2007, the United States Sentencing Commission amended the Drug Quantity Table in section 2D1. of the sentencing guidelines for offenses involving crack cocaine. The amendment, which became effective November 1, 2007, reduced by two levels the base offense levels assigned by the Drug Quantity Table for each quantity of crack cocaine (the "2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment"). Also in 2007, the Commission voted to give retroactive effect to the amendment, which allowed judges to consider motions for retroactive application of the amendment and reduce sentences for those incarcerated under the previous guidelines. The retroactive application of the 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment took effect on March 3, 2008. This publication reports on recidivism of crack cocaine offenders who were released immediately before and after implementation of the 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment, and followed in the community for five years. In order to study the impact of retroactive sentence reduction on recidivism rates, staff analyzed the recidivism rate for a group of crack cocaine offenders whose sentences were reduced pursuant to retroactive application of the 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment. Staff then compared that rate to the recidivism rate for a comparison group of offenders who would have been eligible to seek a reduced sentence under the 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment, but were released before the effective date of that amendment after serving their full prison terms less good time and other earned credits. The question addressed by this study is: "Were offenders who received a reduced sentence retroactively under the 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment more likely to recidivate than similarly situated offenders who did not receive a reduced sentence?" As discussed more fully below, there is no evidence that offenders whose sentence lengths were reduced pursuant to retroactive application of the 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment had higher recidivism rates than a comparison group of crack cocaine offenders who were released before the effective date of the 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment and who served their full prison terms less earned credits. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2014. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2014 at: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/miscellaneous/20140527_Recidivism_2007_Crack_Cocaine_Amendment.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/miscellaneous/20140527_Recidivism_2007_Crack_Cocaine_Amendment.pdf Shelf Number: 132551 Keywords: Crack Cocaine OffendersDrug OffendersRecidivismSentencing Guidelines |
Author: Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center Title: Sentencing Guidelines: Australia, England and Wales, India, South Africa, Uganda Summary: Sentencing guidelines in the common law countries of Australia, England and Wales, India, South Africa, and Uganda vary significantly. England and Wales have a Sentencing Council that develops offense-specific guidelines that the courts must follow, while Uganda's Supreme Court has developed guidelines that are advisory only. In India and Australia, no formal guidelines exist and judges retain wide discretion in sentencing, but both countries have mechanisms in place to provide general guidance-in Australia through state legislation and in India through a series of court decisions that identify relevant sentencing factors. Details: Washington, DC: Law Library of Congress, 2014. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2014 at: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/sentencing-guidelines/sentencing-guidelines.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/sentencing-guidelines/sentencing-guidelines.pdf Shelf Number: 133423 Keywords: CourtsJudicial Decision-MakingSentencing Guidelines |
Author: Schuman, Jacob Title: Sentencing Rules and Standards: How We Decide Criminal Punishment Summary: Over the course of the past 300 years, American sentencing policy has alternated between "determinate" and "indeterminate" systems of deciding punishment. Debates over sentence determinacy have so far focused on three main questions: Who should decide punishment? What makes punishment fair? And why should we punish wrongdoers at all? In this Article, I ask a new, fourth, question: How should we decide punishment? I show that determinate sentencing uses rules to determine sentences, while indeterminate sentencing relies on standards. Applying this insight to federal sentencing practice, I demonstrate that district court judges "depart" or "vary" from the United States Sentencing Guidelines in order to correct the substantive and formal errors that result from rule-based decision-making, instead sentencing in such cases based on the 3553(a) standard. I argue that judges should be more willing to take departures and variances in cases involving particularly large or particularly numerous sentence adjustments, which exacerbate the impact of rule-based errors. Details: Unpublished paper, 2015. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 11, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2545671 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2545671 Shelf Number: 134898 Keywords: Criminal LawCriminal ProcedureSentencing (U.S.)Sentencing Guidelines |
Author: United States Sentencing Commission Title: Illegal Reentry Offenses Summary: This report analyzes data collected by the United States Sentencing Commission1 concerning cases in which offenders are sentenced under USSG 2L1.2 - commonly called "illegal reentry" cases. Such cases are a significant portion of all federal cases in which offenders are sentenced under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. In fiscal year 2013, for instance, illegal reentry cases constituted 26 percent of all such cases. As part of its ongoing review of the guidelines, including the immigration guidelines, the Commission examined illegal reentry cases from fiscal year 2013, including offenders' criminal histories, number of prior deportations, and personal characteristics. Part I of this report summarizes the relevant statutory and guideline provisions. Part II provides general information about illegal reentry cases based on the Commission's annual datafiles. Part III presents the findings of the Commission's in-depth analysis of a representative sample of illegal reentry cases. Part IV presents key findings. Details: Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2015 at: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/immigration/2015_Illegal-Reentry-Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/immigration/2015_Illegal-Reentry-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 135259 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrationIllegal Reentry (U.S.)ImmigrantsImmigration PolicySentencing Guidelines |
Author: United States Sentencing Commission Title: Report to the Congress: Impact of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 Summary: The United States Sentencing Commission ("the Commission") submits this report to Congress in response to a congressional directive contained in section 10 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 ("FSA"), and pursuant to the Commission's general authority under 28 U.S.C. 994-995. For more than twenty years, the Commission has consistently worked with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and other interested parties to ensure that cocaine sentencing policy promotes the goals of the Sentencing Reform Act,1 including avoiding unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar criminal records who have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct and promoting proportionate sentencing. Prior to the FSA, the Commission submitted four reports to Congress regarding cocaine sentencing, in 1995, 1997, 2002, and 2007, based on legislative history, scientific and medical literature, extensive analysis of the Commission's own data, public comment, and expert testimony.2 Since 1995, the Commission consistently took the position that the 100-to-1 drug quantity ratio of crack to powder cocaine significantly undermined the congressional objectives set forth in the Sentencing Reform Act. The Commission reached this conclusion based on its core findings regarding crack cocaine penalties as they existed before the FSA: - they overstated the relative harmfulness of crack cocaine compared to powder cocaine; - they swept too broadly and applied most often to lower level offenders; - they overstated the seriousness of most crack cocaine offenses and failed to provide adequate proportionality; and - their severity mostly impacted minorities.3 As a result of these findings, the Commission recommended that Congress reduce crack cocaine penalties so that the crack-to-powder drug quantity ratio was no more than 20-to-1, and that Congress repeal the mandatory minimum penalty for simple possession of crack cocaine.4 In 2007, the Commission reduced the crack cocaine guideline by two levels as an interim measure to alleviate some of the problems its reports identified.5 Consistent with the Commission's recommendations, the FSA reduced the statutory penalties for crack cocaine offenses to produce an 18-to-1 crack-to-powder drug quantity ratio and eliminated the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine.6 The FSA also increased statutory fines and directed the Commission to amend the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines to account for specified aggravating and mitigating circumstances in drug trafficking offenses involving any drug type, not only crack cocaine.7 The FSA also directed the Commission to "study and submit to Congress a report regarding the impact of the changes in Federal sentencing law under this Act and the amendments made by this Act." 8 The report generally follows the structure of the FSA, first analyzing the FSA's changes to crack cocaine penalties, then turning to its changes to penalties for federal drug trafficking offenses more broadly. The Commission's study finds that the FSA reduced the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences, reduced the federal prison population, and appears to have resulted in fewer federal prosecutions for crack cocaine. All this occurred while crack cocaine use continued to decline. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Commission, 2015. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 13, 2016 at: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/drug-topics/201507_RtC_Fair-Sentencing-Act.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/drug-topics/201507_RtC_Fair-Sentencing-Act.pdf Shelf Number: 140267 Keywords: Cocaine OffendersDrug OffendersDrug TraffickingFair Sentencing ActFederal OffendersRecidivismSentencing GuidelinesSentencing Policy |
Author: Frase, Richard S. Title: Criminal History Enhancements Sourcebook Summary: An offender's criminal history (record of prior convictions) is a major sentencing factor in all American jurisdictions that have implemented sentencing guidelines - offenders in the highest criminal history category often have recommended prison sentences that are many times longer than the recommended sentences for offenders in the lowest category. Criminal history sentence enhancements thus substantially increase the size and expense of prison populations; and since offenders with higher criminal history scores tend to be older, the result is often to fill expensive prison beds with offenders who are past their peak offending years. Such enhancements also have a strong disparate impact on racial and ethnic minorities, and undercut the goal of making sentence severity proportional to offense severity. The Criminal History Project of the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice surveys the widely varying criminal history formulas found in guidelines systems, and encourages these systems to examine their use of criminal history to determine whether it is operating in a just and cost-effective manner. Details: Minneapolis, MN: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota, 2016. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2016 at: http://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/criminal-history-enhancements-sourcebook/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/criminal-history-enhancements-sourcebook/ Shelf Number: 140451 Keywords: Criminal HistoryCriminal RecordsSentencingSentencing Guidelines |
Author: United States Sentencing Commission Title: Report to the Congress: Career Offender Sentencing Enhancements Summary: This report provides a broad overview of several key findings of the United States Sentencing Commission's multi-year study of statutory and guideline definitions relating to the nature of a defendant's prior conviction (e.g., "crime of violence," "violent felony," "drug trafficking offense," and "felony drug offense") and the impact of such definitions on the relevant statutory and guideline provisions (e.g., the career offender guideline and the Armed Career Criminal Act). The report begins by providing background on the career offender directive and the resulting career offender guideline. It also provides sentencing and recidivism data concerning career offenders, including data demonstrating the substantial impact the directive and the career offender guideline have on the resulting sentencing range. The report concludes by recommending statutory changes, including changes that would better tailor the significantly enhanced penalties required for career offenders. A more targeted approach in this area would account for differences among current career offenders and would result in sentences that are more proportional. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Commission, 2016. 103p. Source: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/criminal-history/201607_RtC-Career-Offenders.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/criminal-history/201607_RtC-Career-Offenders.pdf Shelf Number: 140476 Keywords: Career CriminalsSentencingSentencing Guidelines |
Author: Allen, Rob Title: The Sentencing Council of England and Wales: brake or accelerator on the use of prison? Summary: Prisons in England and Wales are facing a major crisis, with serious questions being raised about whether they can accommodate the current population safely, let alone help to reduce re-offending. Ten years ago, the Sentencing Council was conceived as a way of helping to control the growth of prison numbers. But, by the time it started work in 2010, its objectives were limited to making sentencing more effective, predictable and consistent. While prison numbers have been fairly stable over the last six years, this is mainly due to large falls in the numbers appearing in court. Those that do are more likely to go to prison, and to stay there longer. Most of the Council's work has involved the production of guidelines which require courts to take a step by step approach to sentencing, starting at the same point, and taking into account the same kinds of factors in assessing the seriousness of a particular offence. Despite some reluctance on the part of judges and magistrates, guidelines are widely accepted – unsurprisingly given the considerable range of discretion that still exists, and the courts’ ability to sentence outside the guidelines if it is in the interest of justice to do so. Guidelines have sought to reflect the existing practice of the courts, rather than recalibrate sentencing levels based on effectiveness and cost. However, in the case of assaults and burglary (the guidelines whose impact the Council has evaluated), sentence levels have risen more than anticipated. This may not have been solely a result of the guidelines, but concerns have been expressed that the Council has not done enough to challenge increasing sentence lengths, or to give more explicit assistance to courts in determining when offences are so serious that only prison will do. While the Council may have helped to make sentencing more transparent, consistent and proportionate, it has neglected its' potential to curb the ineffective use of imprisonment, adopting a narrow focus to its work. We recommend that both the membership of the Council, and its range of responsibilities, are widened. On the one hand, it could use its current remit to issue guidelines on a wider range of common issues facing sentencers, such as the weight to be attached to previous convictions, and the challenges involved in sentencing women, young adults or people with mental health problems. On the other, its mandate could be extended so that it advises more broadly on sentencing policy, projects prison numbers, and uses its guidelines to keep them in line with available prison places. In the late 2000s the government backtracked on explicitly linking sentencing levels with available resources, but now could be the time to revisit the issue. Prisons are in crisis now as then, and the increasing length of sentences is one of the causes. The Council could play a key role in reducing this population crisis. Details: London: Transform Justice, 2016. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2017 at: http://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/TJ-DEC-8.12.16-1.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/TJ-DEC-8.12.16-1.pdf Shelf Number: 145430 Keywords: SentencingSentencing GuidelinesSentencing Reform |
Author: Robbers, Monica Title: Youth Offenders in the Federal System Summary: Although youthful offenders account for about 18 percent of all federal offenders sentenced between fiscal years 2010 and 2015, there is little current information published about them. In this publication, the United States Sentencing Commission ("the Commission") presents information about youthful offenders, who for purposes of this report are defined as persons age 25 or younger at the time they are sentenced in the federal system. Recent studies on brain development and age, coupled with recent Supreme Court decisions recognizing differences in offender culpability due to age, have led some policymakers to reconsider how youthful offenders should be punished. This report reviews those studies and provides an overview of youthful federal offenders, including their demographic characteristics, what type of offenses they were sentenced for, how they were sentenced, and the extent of their criminal histories. The report also discusses the intersection of neuroscience and law, and how this intersection has influenced the treatment of youthful offenders in the criminal justice system. The Commission is releasing this report as part of its review of the sentencing of youthful offenders. In June 2016, the Commission's Tribal Issues Advisory Group (TIAG) issued a report that proposed several guideline and policy changes relating to youthful offenders, including departure provisions and alternatives to incarceration. Because many of the TIAG recommendations on this topic apply to all youthful offenders, and not just Native Americans, the Commission voted to study the treatment of youthful offenders as a policy priority for the 2016-2017 amendment cycle. The key findings in this report are that: - There were 86,309 offenders (18.0% of the federal offender population) age 25 or younger sentenced in the federal system between 2010 and 2015. - The majority (57.8%) of youthful offenders are Hispanic. - There were very few youthful offenders under the age of 18 sentenced in the federal system (52 between 2010 and 2015). - Almost 92 percent of offenses committed by youthful offenders were nonviolent offenses. - Similar to the overall federal offender population (or non-youthful offenders group) the most common offenses that youthful offenders committed were drug trafficking (30.9%), immigration (28.6%), and firearms offenses (13.7%). - The average sentence for youthful offenders was 34.9 months. - Youthful offenders were more likely to be sentenced within the guidelines range than non-youthful offenders (56.1% compared to 50.1%). - Youthful offenders recidivated at a much higher rate than their older counterparts - about 67 percent versus 41 percent. Details: Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2017. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 14, 2017 at: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20170525_youthful-offenders.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20170525_youthful-offenders.pdf Shelf Number: 148171 Keywords: Federal Offenders Juvenile Offenders Sentencing GuidelinesYouthful Offenders |
Author: Flynn, Melanie Title: Sentencing Wildlife Trade Offences in England and Wales: Consistency, Appropriateness and the Role of Sentencing Guidelines. Summary: 'Sentencing wildlife trade offences in England and Wales: consistency, appropriateness and the role of sentencing guidelines' is a new report commissioned by WWF-UK. The report examines the state of sentencing for wildlife trade offences in England and Wales, and explores the possible benefits of creating sentencing guidelines for such offences. The research examined 174 cases of illegal wildlife trade between 1986 and 2013 that resulted in convictions in courts of England and Wales and found that: - Most cases (74%) resulted in non-custodial sentences with only 58% including a fine - Fines were low - 88% were ≤$2,500, and 70% were less than the wildlife product value - When custodial sentences were used, the length of imprisonment was short - usually under ten months Overall, sentencing was considered to be inconsistent and lenient when the high profits and significant harms of offending were taken into account. Our report showed that one of the reasons for the lenient sentences imposed in the UK is that judges and sentencers might not be informed about the seriousness of the crime or the harm caused. We are therefore urging the Sentencing Council to create sentencing guidelines for wildlife trade offences, which would set out clear ways that appropriate sentences can be reached. Details: Woking, Surrey: World Wildlife Fund UK, 2017. 157p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2017 at: https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-01/WWF-UK%20Report%20-Sentencing%20wildlife%20trade%20offences%20in%20England%20and%20Wales.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-01/WWF-UK%20Report%20-Sentencing%20wildlife%20trade%20offences%20in%20England%20and%20Wales.pdf Shelf Number: 148295 Keywords: Illegal Wildlife TradeIvorySentencing GuidelinesWildlife Crime |
Author: Ginneken, Esther F.J.C. van Title: The pain and purpose of punishment: A subjective perspective Summary: Punishment is one of the purposes of sentencing and may additionally serve instrumental functions, primarily the reduction of crime. However, the current sentencing framework rests on a flawed understanding of the experience and severity of sentences. Punishment can be experienced in a variety of ways and the severity of a sentence depends on individual circumstances and vulnerabilities; subjective severity is also inextricably linked to inequality in society. Sentencing guidelines have been introduced with the aim of achieving consistency in sentences, with more severe punishment for more serious offences. However, it is necessary to move away from the idea that we can objectively rank severity of punishment and give more consideration to what it is supposed to achieve. Regarding imprisonment, it currently fails to communicate to prisoners what it is for and neither does it appear to achieve rehabilitation or deterrence. Yet, the legitimacy of the Criminal Justice System rests on perceptions of fairness, not only of victims and the public, but also of those subjected to punishment. A 'just' criminal justice system should therefore consider subjective experiences in sentencing and the implementation of sentences. This paper advocates a commitment to communicative punishment, with offenders as active participants in the process of shaping their punishment. Details: London: the Howard League for Penal Reform, 2016. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Howard League What is Justice? Working Papers 22/2016: Accessed November 28, 2017 at: http://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/HLWP-22-2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/HLWP-22-2016.pdf Shelf Number: 148518 Keywords: Punishment Sentencing Sentencing Guidelines |
Author: Hofer, Paul J. Title: Ranking Drug Harms for Sentencing Policy Summary: Unidimensional rankings comparing the harmfulness of different drugs have been criticized as too simplistic for policy making. A type of unidimensional ranking of direct drug harms is needed for sentencing policy making, however, in order to implement the sentencing principle of just desert. Available empirical evidence of the relative harmfulness of illegal drugs on several measures of direct harm is reviewed. Data on typical dosage weight is used to evaluate the proportionality of current federal mandatory minimum statutes and guidelines for drug trafficking offenses. Several drugs that rank relatively low on harms are punished as, or more, severely than drugs that are far more harmful. Mandatory minimum statutes and congressional directives to the United States Sentencing Commission must be repealed or revised before recommendations of the federal sentencing guidelines will result in proportionate punishment. Details: Unpublished paper, 2015. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 1, 2017 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2612654 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2612654 Shelf Number: 148684 Keywords: Drug Abuse Drug Offenders DrugPolicy Illegal Drugs Sentencing Guidelines |
Author: Gruber, Aya Title: Equal Protection Under the Carceral State Summary: McCleskey v. Kemp, the case that upheld the death penalty despite undeniable evidence of its racially disparate impact, is indelibly marked by Justice William Brennan's phrase, "a fear of too much justice." The popular interpretation of this phrase is that the Supreme Court harbored what I call a "disparity-claim fear," dreading a future docket of racial discrimination claims and erecting an impossibly high bar for proving an equal protection violation. A related interpretation is that the majority had a "color-consciousness fear" of remedying discrimination through raceremedial policies. This Essay argues that the primary anxiety exhibited by the McCleskey majority was a "leniency fear" of death penalty abolition. Opinion author Justice Lewis Powell made clear his view that execution was the appropriate punishment for McCleskey's crime and expressed worry that McCleskey's victory would open the door to challenges of criminal sentences more generally. Understanding that the Court's primary political sensitivity was to state penal authority, not racial hierarchy, complicates the progressive sentiment that McCleskey's call-to-action is securing equality of punishment. Derrick Bell's "interest convergence" theory predicts that even conservatives with an aversion to robust equal protection law will accept racial-disparity evidence when in the service of crime-control values. Indeed, Justice Powell may have been more sanguine about McCleskey's discrimination claim had mandatory capital punishment been an option. This Essay cautions that, outside of the death penalty context, courts and lawmakers can address perceived punishment disparities through "level-up" remedies, such as mandatory minimum sentences or abolishing diversion (which is said to favor white defendants). It analyzes examples of convergence between antidiscrimination and prosecutorial interests, including mandatory sentencing guidelines, aggressive domestic violence policing and prosecution, and the movement to abolish Stand-Your-Ground laws. Details: Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Law School, 2018. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3179707 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3179707 Shelf Number: 150388 Keywords: Capital PunishmentDeath PenaltyDomestic ViolenceRacial DisparitiesSentencingSentencing GuidelinesStand Your Ground Laws |
Author: Victoria (Australia). Sentencing Advisory Council Title: A Sentencing Guidelines Council for Victoria; Report Summary: A perennial struggle within the criminal law is how to balance the need for equality, transparency and consistency with the need for individualised justice when deciding how people found guilty of crimes should be punished. On the one hand, it is a fundamental principle of the rule of law that like cases be treated alike, that justice be dispensed equally. The legitimacy of the law, especially the criminal law, is largely dependent on it being perceived as fair. This requires not only that decisions are fair in and of themselves, but also that the process by which those decisions are made is perceived as fair. Justice must not just be done; it must be seen to be done. This means that decisions must not appear arbitrary, nor can they appear to treat people differently without good reason. On the other hand, the unique circumstances of every case, and of every offender, mean that discretion is essential to the process of sentencing. Judges and magistrates are required to take into account the culpability of the offender, the harm the offender has caused to any victims and to the broader community, the particular circumstances of the offender's life and prior history, and a number of distinct (and often competing) objectives of punishment. Judges and magistrates must then determine both the type and the level of punishment that is most proportionate to the offending and that accords with numerous legislative schemes and broader principles of the common law. Sentencing is a complex and unenviable task. In Australia, the approach to sentencing known as instinctive synthesis involves courts simultaneously balancing all the relevant considerations in a case to reach an appropriate outcome. This approach preserves the court's discretion to impose a just and proportionate sentence that takes into account all the circumstances of the case. The intent of sentencing guidelines is not to remove that discretion, but rather to structure its exercise in a way that is transparent and understandable without unnecessarily tying the court's hands. Indeed, recent research in the United Kingdom suggests that sentencing guidelines have improved not only the consistency in how courts sentence offenders, but also the individualisation of those sentences. Sentencing guidelines aim to guide - not supplant - judicial decision-making. This is in stark contrast to proposals for mandatory sentencing, which curtail judicial discretion and inevitably lead to injustice. Further, the process for the development of sentencing guidelines aims to engage the broader community in the informed consideration of sentencing policy, allowing greater reflection of community standards in sentencing practices, and greater public confidence in the sentencing process. A sentencing guidelines council for Victoria represents one of the most significant changes to sentencing in Australia in recent memory. It also represents a unique opportunity to better achieve the necessary balance between consistency, transparency and discretion in sentencing, in a way not seen before in any Australian jurisdiction. Details: Melbourne: The Council, 2018. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 31, 2018 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/A_Sentencing_Guidelines_Council_for_Victoria_Report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/A_Sentencing_Guidelines_Council_for_Victoria_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 150417 Keywords: Punishment Sentencing Guidelines Sentencing Reform |
Author: United States Sentencing Commission Title: Mandatory Minimum Penalties for Firearms Offenses in the Federal Criminal Justice System Summary: This publication is the third in the Commission's series on mandatory minimum penalties. Using fiscal year 2016 data, this publication includes analyses of the two statutes carrying a firearms mandatory minimum penalty, 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (relating to using or possessing firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking or crimes of violence) and the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e), as well as the impact of those provisions on the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) population. Where appropriate, the publication highlights changes and trends since the Commission's 2011 Mandatory Minimum Report. Details: Washington, DC: The Commission, 2018. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 10, 2018 at: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2018/20180315_Firearms-Mand-Min.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2018/20180315_Firearms-Mand-Min.pdf Shelf Number: 150793 Keywords: Drug TraffickingFederal Sentencing GuidelinesFirearms OffensesMandatory Minimum SentencesSentencing GuidelinesViolent Crime |
Author: United States Sentencing Commission Title: Recidivism Among Federal Offenders Receiving Retroactive Sentence Reductions: The 2011 Fair Sentencing Act Guideline Amendment Summary: The Fair Sentencing Act of 20101 ("FSA") reduced the statutory penalties for crack cocaine offenses in two ways. First, it increased the drug quantity thresholds required to trigger the statutory mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for manufacturing or trafficking crack cocaine. Second, it eliminated the statutory mandatory minimum penalty for possession of crack cocaine. In the FSA, Congress directed the United States Sentencing Commission (the "Commission") to amend the federal sentencing guidelines to incorporate the reduced statutory penalty structure for crack cocaine offenses effective November 1, 2010. Congress did not make the FSA statutory penalty reductions retroactive, but the Commission did give retroactive effect to the FSA guideline amendment (the "FSA Guideline Amendment") as of November 1, 2011.2 Following that action, 7,748 crack cocaine offenders have received an estimated average sentence reduction of 30 months, lowering their sentence from an average of 153 months to 123 months of imprisonment. In 2015, as required by the FSA, the Commission submitted a report to Congress assessing the impact of the FSA on the federal criminal justice system (the "2015 FSA Report"). The Commission noted in that report that its earlier research had found that a previous population of crack cocaine offenders released early as a result of retroactive application of a guideline amendment did not show a statistically significant increase in the likelihood of recidivating, but it was too soon to assess the recidivism of crack cocaine offenders released early through retroactive application of the FSA Guideline Amendment. In the 2015 FSA Report, the Commission further stated its intent to separately study the effect of retroactive application of the FSA Guideline Amendment on recidivism. This publication provides that analysis: Finding: The Commission finds no difference between the recidivism rates for offenders who were released early due to retroactive application of the FSA Guideline Amendment and offenders who had served their full sentences before the FSA Guideline Amendment reduction retroactively took effect. Details: Washington, DC: USSC, 2018. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2018 at: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2018/20180328_Recidivism_FSA-Retroactivity.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2018/20180328_Recidivism_FSA-Retroactivity.pdf Shelf Number: 152918 Keywords: Cocaine OffendersDrug OffendersDrug TraffickingFair Sentencing ActFederal OffendersRecidivismSentencing GuidelinesSentencing Policy |