« "The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences" | Main | The Constitution Project issues big new report calling for broad reform of capital punishment administration »

May 7, 2014

Within-guideline sentences dip below 50% according to latest USSC data

Due to a busy end-of-the-semester schedule, I only just this week got a chance to look at US Sentencing Commission's posting here of its First Quarter FY14 Quarterly Sentencing data.  And, as the title of this post highlights, there is big news in these USSC data: for the first time, less than half of all federal sentences imposed were technically "within-guideline" sentences.  To be exact, only 48.8% of the 18,169 sentences imposed during the last three months of 2013 were within-guideline sentences.

In this post following the previous quarterly USSC data release, I noted a small uptick in the number of below guideline sentences imposed by federal district judges (from around 18.5% of all federal cases to 19.3% in the last quarter of FY13).  At that time, I hypothesized that perhaps a few more judges were willing to impose below-guideline sentences in a few more federal cases after Attorney General Eric Holder's big August 2013 speech to the ABA lamenting excessive use of incarceration in the United States.  Now, in this latest quarterly data run, the number of judge-initiated, below-guideline sentences has ticked up again, this time to 20.4% of all sentenced federal cases.  I now this this data blip is evidence of a real "Holder effect."

Though still more time and data are needed before firm causal conclusions should be reached here, I do believe all the recent talk about the need for federal sentencing reform is likely finding expression in the way federal judges are now using their post-Booker discretion.  The data from the last six month suggest that, as we hear ever more public policy groups and politicians on both the right and the left echoing AG Holder's call for less reliance on long terms of incarceration, more federal judges feel ever more justified in imposing more sentences below the guidelines. 

May 7, 2014 at 12:21 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e201a73dbb74d2970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Within-guideline sentences dip below 50% according to latest USSC data:

Comments

"Without substantial revisions — not only to lethal injection, but across the board — the administration of capital punishment in America is unjust, disproportionate and very likely unconstitutional," said committee member Mark Earley, who was a Republican attorney general of Virginia when the state carried out 36 executions.

Another twit Republican.

Posted by: federalist | May 7, 2014 1:15:19 AM

Interesting that this is the cast post Rita and Gall, despite Holder's remarks/policy.

Posted by: Chris | May 7, 2014 8:28:50 AM

I almost feel like I have to ask "which guidelines" after the Antwuan Ball case. Obviously, while it's possible to cheer the below guideline sentences, there's also the situation of Judges giving credit to jury findings, but also making independent findings, resulting in situations where the verdict would be within the guidelines for a jury's decision (or perhaps slightly above), but below the guidelines based on judicial findings (or perhaps within it now). Either way, it'll be confusing to measure.

Posted by: Erik M | May 7, 2014 9:29:51 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB