June 1, 2011
Lots of news as AG Holder say to USSC lower FSA crack guidelines should be retroactive
June kicks off with big US Sentencing Commission doings: the agency today has been conducting a full-day hearing to consider whether and how its new reduced crack sentencing guidelines prompted by the Fair Sentencing Act should be made retroactive. A few weeks ago, the USSC released this impact analysis of what FSA crack guidelines retroactivity might be, and late yesterday the USSC posted this recidivism analysis reporting on its study of the reoffense rates for offenders who got released a bit earlier from prison due to the last round of reduced crack guidelines that were made retroactive.
Meanwhile, as reported in this Bloomberg piece, Attorney General Eric Holder personally testified before the USSC this morning and he indicated support for (partial) retroactivity of the new reduced crack guidelines:
Holder described the Obama administration’s position today at a hearing before the U.S. Sentencing Commission in Washington, which establishes sentencing policies and is considering whether the shorter sentences should be retroactive. Applying the measure to those previously sentenced could affect about 12,000 inmates....
“We believe that the imprisonment terms of those sentenced pursuant to the old statutory disparity -- who are not considered dangerous drug offenders -- should be alleviated to the extent possible to reflect the new law,” Holder said. Retroactive reductions in sentences shouldn’t apply to those who possessed or used weapons in committing their crimes or offenders with “significant” criminal histories, Holder said.
The full text of AG Holder's written testimony and of many others testifying today before the USSC are linked from this page. Here is a key passage from AG Holder's testimony:
The Commission’s Sentencing Guidelines already make clear that retroactivity of the guideline amendment is inappropriate when its application poses a significant risk to public safety -- and the Administration agrees. In fact, we believe certain dangerous offenders -- including those who have possessed or used weapons in committing their crimes and those who have significant criminal histories -- should be categorically prohibited from receiving the benefits of retroactivity, a step beyond current Commission policy.
The Administration’s suggested approach to retroactivity of the amendment recognizes Congressional intent in the Fair Sentencing Act to differentiate dangerous and violent drug offenders and ensure that their sentences are no less than those originally set. However, we believe that the imprisonment terms of those sentenced pursuant to the old statutory disparity -- who are not considered dangerous drug offenders -- should be alleviated to the extent possible to reflect the new law.
This effort by Holder and DOJ to differentiate dangerous and violent drug offenders from non-violent drug offenders seems sound to me (though the devil can and will often be in the details). I will not be at all surprised if the USSC adopts some version of what the Justice Department is advocating here.
A few related posts on this particular retroactivity decision before the USSC are linked below, and readers interested in a broader understanding of the FSA should check out this February 2011 issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporteron the FSA and those interested in a broader discussion of the last round of crack retroactivity should check out this April 2008 FSR issue on crack retroactivity:
- USSC request comments on possible retroactivity of new crack and drug guidelines
- Revised data from USSC concerning potential impact of FSA guideline retroactivity
June 1, 2011 at 11:46 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lots of news as AG Holder say to USSC lower FSA crack guidelines should be retroactive:
I agree by not making eligible offenders with gun bumps with their ofenses.. But there are a lot cat 5 & 6 offenders who have significant minor charges....This category should be included in the retroactivity...After all, the new defendents are getting all of the benefit, why shouldn't those that have non violent type offenses...And have obeyed most of the mickey mouse rules that must be within a federal facility..
Posted by: Josh | Jun 1, 2011 1:20:18 PM