SENTENCING REGIME IN U.S.

WHY IS THERE A MASSIVE INCREASE IN THE

P R I S O N P O P U L AT I O N ?
 INTRODUCTION

 With a Republican majority in the Senate and a Democratic majority in the House, the 98th Congress enacted the Sentencing
Reform Act of 1984.
 The Act comprehensively changed federal sentencing practices by abolishing federal parole and creating the United States
Sentencing Commission, ultimately leading to the widely criticized federal sentencing guidelines.
 Two years later, after the death of professional basketball star Len Bias from a cocaine overdose, congress passed a slew of
mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.
 In1994 Crime Bill was passed which creating new crimes and increased mandatory minimum penalties and ended Pell grants for
those in federal prison.
 Towards the end of the 1990s, a Republican-majority Congress passed two more criminal justice bills, one curtailing federal habeas
corpus remedies and the other limiting prisoners’ ability to bring civil rights lawsuits in federal court.
 F E D E R A L S E N T E N C I N G G U I D E L I N E S A N D M A N D AT O R Y
M I N I M U M S T AT U T E S
 The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are “a system of multiple recommended sentences and dispositions”
that have been designed to guide judicial decisions by requiring the sentencing judge to “assign
numerical weight to numerous aggravating and mitigating factors” relating to the offender’s criminal
conduct criminal history. With the introduction of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the perceived
purpose of criminal punishment shifted away from rehabilitation to deterrence, and the focus of
sentencing shifted from the personal characteristics of the offender to the circumstances of the
offense.”

 Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes - These are the guidelines that require a judge to sentence an
offender who has committed a specific crime to a specified minimum term of incarceration. While these
laws have been implemented for many types of offenses, such laws are particularly frequent for drug
offenses.
 E X A M P L E S O F M A N D AT O RY S E N T E N C I N G

 Ex 1: under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b)(1), an offender convicted of trafficking 28 grams or more
of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base (crack cocaine) is subject to a mandatory
minimum penalty of not less than five years, whereas an offender convicted of an offense
involving 280 grams is subject to a mandatory minimum penalty of ten years.
 Ex 2: is 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, which requires a mandatory consecutive term of imprisonment for
identity theft committed in connection with certain underlying offenses.
 Ex 3: 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), commonly known as the Armed Career Criminal Act. Section 924(e)
provides a mandatory minimum penalty of 15 years of imprisonment if a person commits a
firearms offense and has previously been convicted of three or more “violent felonies” or
“serious drug offenses.
 P O P U L AT I O N O F I N M AT E S

 The federal prison population increased from 24,640 in

1980 to 1,435,500 people in federal and state prisons
according to prison statistics, 2019.
 S U M M A RY O F S R A , 1 9 8 4

 The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (Chapter II of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984; P.L. 98-473), in essence,
eliminated indeterminate sentencing at the federal level.
 The act created the United States Sentencing Commission, an independent body within the judicial branch of the federal government
and charged it with promulgating guidelines for federal sentencing. The purpose of the Commission was to examine unwarranted
disparity in federal sentencing policy, among other things.
 In establishing sentencing guidelines for federal judges, the Commission took into consideration factors such as (1) the nature and
degree of harm caused by the offense; (2) the offender's prior record; (3) public views of the gravity of the offense; (4) the deterrent
effect of a particular sentence; and (5) aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
 In addition to these factors, the Commission also considered characteristics of the offender, such as age, education, vocational skills,
and mental or emotional state, among other things. Prior to the Booker decision (discussed next), the guidelines were binding.
 It abandoned one of the traditional goals of punishment, rehabilitation, and asserted the
following goals: retribution, education, deterrence and incapacitation.
 It consolidated the power that had been exercised by judges and the U.S. Parole Board to
decide the type of punishment and its length by abolishing paroles and creating the U.S.
Sentencing Commission and charging it with establishing sentencing guidelines.
 It made all federal sentences determinate.
 It authorized appellate review of sentences in which the judge departed from the guidelines
and review of other sentences under certain circumstances
  The statutory criteria that trigger
mandatory minimum penalties can be
classified into at least one of three
categories:
M A N D AT O RY
1. penalties triggered by offense
MINIMUM characteristics or elements of the
P E N A LT I E S U N D E R offense of conviction;
U.S. CODE
2. penalties triggered by reference to
another underlying offense; or
3. penalties triggered by the offender’s
criminal history.
 C H A N G E S M A D E I N 2 1 S T C E N T U RY

 Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) - The question presented in each of these cases is whether an application of the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment. In every case which was cited during this judgment, it was held that binding rules
set forth in the Guidelines limited the severity of the sentence that the judge could lawfully impose on the defendant based on the facts
found by the jury at his trial. The provision of the federal sentencing statute that makes the United States Sentencing Guidelines
mandatory, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(b)(1), is incompatible with the United States Supreme Court's constitutional holding that the Sixth
Amendment requires juries, not judges, to find facts relevant to sentencing. This provision must be severed and excised, as must one
other statutory section, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3742(e), which depends upon the Guidelines' mandatory nature. So modified, the Federal
Sentencing Act, Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, as amended, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3551 et seq., 28 U.S.C.S. § 991 et seq., makes the
Guidelines effectively advisory. It requires a sentencing court to consider Guidelines ranges, 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a)(4), but it permits the
court to tailor the sentence in light of other statutory concerns as well, § 3553(a).
 In Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558 (2007) another 7-2 decision, the Court held that a sentence outside the guidelines range is
not per se unreasonable when it is based on a disagreement with the sentencing disparity for crack and powered cocaine offenses. In
reaching its decision, the Court found that the cocaine guidelines, like all other guidelines, are only advisory
 The Fair Sentencing Reform Act of 2010.
 Sentencing Reform Act, 2015
 Congress also passed a federal prison and sentencing reform bill called the First Step Act in
December 2018.
 The First Step Act requires the BOP (Federal Bureau of Prisons) to provide meaningful
rehabilitation programs for federal prisoners and ties those programs to earned credit time that
federal prisoners can use to serve out some of their prison sentence in a halfway house or in-
home confinement.
 FA I R S E N T E N C I N G
R E F O R M A C T, 2 0 1 0

 In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which reduced the sentencing disparity between offenses
for crack and powder cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1.
 Under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, defendants convicted of a crack cocaine offense will now need to possess at
least 28 grams, compared to the previous five grams, to receive a five-year mandatory minimum. To trigger the 10-
year mandatory minimum requires a crack cocaine quantity of 280 grams.
 the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to retroactively apply the new FSA Sentencing Guidelines to individuals
sentenced before the law was enacted. This decision will help ensure that over 12,000 people — 85 percent of whom
are African-Americans — will have the opportunity to have their sentences for crack cocaine offenses reviewed by a
federal judge and possibly reduced. But the congress hadn’t approved the same.
 SENTENCING REFORM
ACT OF 2015

 H.R. 3713 would change the safety valve in two ways. First, a defendant would be safety valve eligible with 4 or fewer criminal history points if he had not been
convicted previously of a 2- point drug trafficking or violent crime (one that resulted in a sentence of 60 days or more), or any 3-point offense (one for which he was
incarcerated for more than 13 months).
 Second, the proposal would permit the court to waive the criminal history disqualification, in cases other than those involving a past serious drug felony or serious
violent felony conviction, if it concluded that the defendant’s criminal history score overstated the seriousness of his criminal record or the likelihood that he would
commit other offenses
 H.R. 3713 would create a mini-safety valve to reduce the mandatory minimum for Class A offenses to imprisonment for not less than 5 years, only if the offender
has fulfilled the safety valve.
 H.R. 3713 increases imprisonment for certain firearm offences from not more than 10 years to not more than 15 years.
 It would allow a court to reduce a sentence that was imposed for an
 offense committed prior to the FSA, to reflect the FSA amendments
 Sentencing Reform act of 2017- S. 1917 would amend federal law to shorten some prison sentences associated with certain offenses and would require the
establishment of several new programs intended to reduce recidivism.
 F I R S T S T E P A C T, 2 0 1 8 :

 The Act also includes a number of provisions aimed at reforming the BOP: placing prisoners within 500 driving miles of their families;
 increasing federal good-time by seven days, and thereby reducing every sentence for those persons with a release date;
 allocating $50 million dollars each year for five years to create rehabilitative programming;
 improving accountability in the BOP’s use of compassionate release and prohibiting the shackling of pregnant women.
 While the bill was pending in the Senate, sentencing reform was also added, including retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act,
thereby reducing the statutory punishments for those convicted of crack cocaine offenses,
 And reducing the statutory maximums for certain drug offenses committed by those with prior drug convictions,
 fixing the onerous stacking of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) charges on those who carry a firearm during a drug or violent offense, and expanding
on the safety valve provision, which allows federal judges to sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum punishment for certain
eligible offenders
VA R I AT I O N S O F  Presumptive sentencing guidelines
SENTENCING  Mandatory Sentences
POLICIES IN U.S.  Federal Sentencing
 Racial Disparities- The mandatory minimum
sentence, three strikes, dangerous offender, truth in
sentencing, and life without parole laws enacted in
the 1980s and 1990s targeted violent and drug
crimes.
 Predicting Dangerousness- All prediction
instruments incorporate socioeconomic variables
such as marital status, employment record,
education, and residential stability that are not the
state’s business.
CONCLUSION
THANK YOU