[1] The number of federal offenders has substantially increased, and most federal offenders have continued to receive substantial sentences of imprisonment.
[2] The guidelines have remained the essential starting point for all federal sentences and have continued to influence sentences significantly.
[3] The influence of the guidelines, as measured by the relationship between the average guideline minimum and the average sentence, has generally remained stable in drug trafficking, firearms, and immigration offenses, but has diminished in fraud and child pornography offenses.
[4] For most offense types, the rate of within range sentences has decreased while the rate of below range sentences (both government sponsored and non-government sponsored) has increased over time.
[5] The influence of the guidelines, as measured by the relationship between the average guideline minimum and the average sentence, and as measured by within range rates, has varied by circuit.
[6] The rates of non-government sponsored below range sentences have increased in most districts and the variation in such rates across districts for most offenses was greatest in the Gall period, indicating that sentencing outcomes increasingly depend upon the district in which the defendant is sentenced.
[7] For offenses in the aggregate, the average extent of the reduction for non-government sponsored below range sentences has been approximately 40 percent below the guideline minimum during all periods (amounting to average reductions of 17 to 21 months); however, the extent of the reduction has varied by offense type.
[8] Prosecutorial practices have contributed to disparities in federal sentencing.
[9] Variation in the rates of non-government sponsored below range sentences among judges within the same district has increased in most districts since Booker, indicating that sentencing outcomes increasingly depend upon the judge to whom the case is assigned.
[10] Appellate review has not promoted uniformity in sentencing to the extent the Supreme Court anticipated in Booker.
[11] Demographic factors (such as race, gender, and citizenship) have been associated with sentence length at higher rates in the Gall period than in previous periods.
What is fascinating about the Sentencing Commission's perspective on its own existence is its inherent fixation on its own raison d'être, particularly reflected in number 2, and its production of the outcome in number 1 above.
The number of federal offenders has substantially increased, and most federal offenders have continued to receive substantial sentences of imprisonment.
Is this a good thing? Are we winning the race against tyrannies everywhere? Does the Bureau of Prison's hand out "we are number 1" sponge fingers? By noting this off the top, the USSC seems to see this as a feature rather than a bug of its guidelines, that they contribute to the United States of America being the land of the incarcerated rather than the land of the free.
After all, if they concept of homogenizing offenses so that they can be sentenced by grid was sound, and was mandatory for a generation before becoming advisory, and yet still remaining the starting point for most sentences and "significantly influencing" sentences, then the efficacy of the model should produce fewer prisoners, not more. If they worked, they would deter people from committing crime. Instead,
The number of federal offenders has substantially increased, and most federal offenders have continued to receive substantial sentences of imprisonment.
The number hasn't decreased. It hasn't even remained stable. It has "substantially increased." When the number of federal offenders is substantially greater than it was before, there is a clear take-away: You are doing something very wrong.
On the other side, the USSC notes that things are changing (despite its claim that they are very much staying the same) because
For offenses in the aggregate, the average extent of the reduction for non-government sponsored below range sentences has been approximately 40 percent below the guideline minimum during all periods (amounting to average reductions of 17 to 21 months); however, the extent of the reduction has varied by offense type.
Forget the caveat, which has no business being included in the finding as it's both obvious and uninformative. There is a message in this finding to the USSC which, though noted statistically, doesn't appear to be adequately processed: The judges on the ground think your guidelines suck. On their own (non-govermental sponsored below range sentences), judges are rejecting what the guidelines tell them is the "proper" sentence for an offense and going 40% below.
Forty percent! That's huge. And these aren't lily-livered, soft-on-crime, wild-eyed liberal criminal lovers. These are United States District Court Judges. These are those very stern guys and gals who were voted "Most Likely to Never Know A Poor Person" in high school. And even they think the guidelines are absurdly harsh.
Despite the turgid language and apparent lack of introspection, the "legal market" is sending a message to the USSC that it's not buying what they're selling. This should be cause for some celebration, as the world of federal sentencing is showing signs of returning to a state where individualized sentencing is more important than calculations of points.
But the problem, as was made clear in Judge John Gleeson's recent memo about the drug guidelines, that the guidelines as a starting point remains a fiction that is unworthy of the dead trees upon which it is printed. To the extent the guidelines serve to inform judges of a starting point in the consideration of sentences, we continue to perpetuate this myth, this fiction of empirical sentencing based upon offense conduct without regard to the plethora of facts and circumstances that comprise conduct that requires imprisonment.
And that is why this conclusion should remain the most disturbing:
The number of federal offenders has substantially increased, and most federal offenders have continued to receive substantial sentences of imprisonment.
As long as that remains the case, we have failed and continue to fail. The point is to reduce crime, not "substantially" increase the number of prisoners. We have failed, and there doesn't appear to be anyone at the USSC who appreciates it.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/02/04/ussc-reveals-shocker-were-still-failing.aspx?ref=rss
pro bono lawyers probate attorney real estate attorney real estate lawyer solicitor
No comments:
Post a Comment