« "Rape as Indignity" | Main | New Sentencing Project report: "Counting Down: Paths to a 20-Year Maximum Prison Sentence" »
February 14, 2023
Latest issue of Federal Sentencing Reporter now available: "New U.S. Sentencing Commission Gets to Work"
As mentioned in this post a few months ago, the latest volume of the Federal Sentencing Reporter has a number of issues filled with a number of commentaries providing all sorts of advice for the new US Sentencing Commission. The first of these FSR issues was titled "21st Century Advice to the New Commissioners" and can be found online here. The follow-up FSR issue is titled "New U.S. Sentencing Commission Gets to Work," and it includes another set of original articles and related materials providing additional advice for the new USSC. This new issue is available online here, and it begins with this introductory essay authored by me and Prof Steve Chanenson under the title "A Big Agenda and a Big Question for the New Sentencing Commission." Here is the abstract of this introductory essay:
Recent Senate confirmation of President Biden’s nominees to the U.S. Sentencing Commission transformed a long-hobbled agency into a refreshed expert body with a new opportunity to reexamine federal sentencing law and practice. The new Commission has no shortage of large and small issues to tackle in the months and years ahead, and it faces not only a full and substantive agenda, but also a big operational question as it gets to work on its priorities. The Commission has long stressed consensus in developing guideline amendments and related policy work. But now with a full Commission of seven members when only four Commissioner votes are needed to advance guideline amendments and other formal policy decisions, it is possible that some Commissioners may not see a practical reason for the new Commission to always proceed by consensus and to advance only unanimously supported amendments. A new Commission with a new willingness to move forward with amendments and policy initiatives, even in the absence of consensus, could prove to be a much bolder Commission. But is bolder necessarily better, in terms of substantive work products and the ability to advance and implement proposed reforms? Would a U.S. Sentencing Commission acting without consensus be more politically vulnerable in these divided and divisive times?
Prior related post:
February 14, 2023 at 06:07 PM | Permalink