From Sentencing Law and Policy:
The highest profile amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines promulgated by the US Sentencing Commission last week (basics here) concerns a major revision of § 1B1.13 setting terms for a "Reduction in Term of Imprionment under 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(1)(A)" (discussed here). But the most consequential amendment might prove to be new provisions altering how criminal history will impact guideline calculations. USSC Chair Reeves discussed in his statement at last week's hearing (just some of) the particulars:
[W]e have proposed addressing two discrete ways in which the sentencing guidelines punish people for having a “criminal history.” The first proposal aimed to reduce or eliminate the use of “status points,” which are sentencing enhancements given to people who committed a crime while on parole or probation. As we heard from many commenters, status points often amount to a form of “double penalty.”... Moreover, Commission research strongly suggests that status points’ ability to predict recidivism -- a core justification for their use -- may be extremely weak.
In light of all this, the Commission’s final policy eliminates status points in the vast majority of criminal cases. For a limited category of defendants with extensive criminal histories, we are cutting the effect of status points in half, reflecting the idea that this tool may sometimes achieve other goals beyond predicting recidivism.
The second “criminal history” proposal we issued sought to fulfill a core directive Congress gave the Commission at its inception. That directive says that, in general, “a first offender who has not been convicted of a crime of violence or an otherwise serious offense” should not be incarcerated. The Commission’s proposal sought to define who met this standard and what the consequences for meeting this standard should be.
Ultimately, we decided to answer both questions broadly. Our final policy provides a larger reduction in sentence for a larger category of people than the status quo. While we agreed to limit this reduction in a limited set of circumstances, we also agreed to give judges discretion to expand non-carceral option tp more people. Continue reading >>>
|
|
|
|
