Introduction
For over 25 years much of the controversy and debate around federal sentencing policy has focused on mandatory minimum sentences. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and the 1988 Omnibus Anti-Abuse Act established harsh mandatory punishments for drug and firearm offenses (including the infamous 100:1 crack/powder cocaine ratio).1 The establishment of these laws corresponds with the nearly 800% increase in federal incarceration since 1980. Until recently, limited information was available regarding the full impact of these sentencing policies.
Under a statutory directive, the United States Sentencing Commission (the Commission) in October 2011 submitted to Congress its second report in 20 years assessing the impact of federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws. The report concludes:
“Certain mandatory minimum provisions apply too broadly, are set too high, or both, to warrant the prescribed minimum penalty… This has led to inconsistencies in application of certain mandatory minimum penalties…”2
This paper highlights important findings in the Commission’s report and its recommendations for reform.
Read on....
Your resource for news, research, opinion and comment in the world of Criminology and Criminal Justice, brought to you by the Criminology Library, Centre for Criminology & Sociolegal Studies, University of Toronto
Showing posts with label Sentencing Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sentencing Commission. Show all posts
Constitution Project Committee Member Testifies Before the U.S. Sentencing Commission on Mandatory Minimums
Thomas W. Hillier, II, federal public defender in Washington State, urges Commission to endorse a reduction in the number of mandatory minimum sentencing laws
WASHINGTON - May 27 - Thomas W. Hillier, II, the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Washington and member of the Constitution Project's Sentencing Committee, will testify before the United States Sentencing Commission today that the number of federal mandatory minimum sentences should be dramatically reduced. The hearing is being held pursuant to a Congressional directive requiring the Commission to report to the House Judiciary Committee on federal mandatory minimum sentences. The Commission will hear from many relevant perspectives on the issue, including executive branch officials, sentencing practitioners, law enforcement officials, academics, policy analysts, and advocacy groups.
Mr. Hillier will appear on behalf of the Constitution Project's Sentencing Committee, which concluded that mandatory minimums are at odds with a federal sentencing guidelines system that is designed to allow for a proper balance between consistency and individualization of sentences. In prepared testimony, Mr. Hillier stated that, in his opinion, the most troubling aspect of these sentences is the inappropriate skewing of the balance of power, which gives a disproportionate amount of power to the prosecutor. He observed that, in his experience, mandatory minimums create the perception of injustice by both the public and individual defendants and thus erode confidence in our criminal justice system, and that they are commonly threatened to induce pleas in situation in which the penalty would be unfair and unjustified based on the facts of the alleged crime. As a result, he testified, the truth-seeking function of our criminal justice system is threatened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)