Remarks of Chair of US Sentencing Commission suggests his affinity for retroactivity of new criminal history guidelines

A series of meetings kept me from watching all 6+ hours of the US Sentencing Commission's public hearing yesterday considering the possible retroactivity of the USSC's new amendments to the criminal history guidelines.  Helpfully, the full Commission hearing is now archived on this USSC webpage (though I will readily admit that a distinct event is now drawing my attention.) 

But yesterday I was able to hear these opening remarks by Judge Carlton W. Reeves, the Commission's Chair.  Those remarks certainly suggested to me that the Chair is supportive of retroactivity application of the USSC's new criminal history guidelines.  These passages in particular caught my attention (emphasis in original, footnotes omitted):

The purpose of today’s hearing speaks to our core mission of crafting sentencing policy that is fair and evidence-based.  In May, we unanimously voted to create policies that will change how criminal history affects the sentences of defendants.  Reflecting the latest research on effective criminal justice practices, these policies will ensure defendants receive more just and evidence-based sentences in the years to come. Now, we must decide whether people incarcerated under the old policies should get a chance to have their sentences revised in line with our new one. In other words, today’s testimony will help us decide whether to apply our criminal history amendments to the sentencing guidelines retroactively.

Congress has told us to make this decision by “examining a wide spectrum of views.” To that end, we asked the public to provide us with their input. We received hundreds of comments from senators, judges, lawyers, religious leaders, doctors, professors, advocates, victims, families, and incarcerated people.... We heard them say this decision on retroactivity is our chance to “correct past wrongs and address the systemic disparities that have plagued our society for far too long.” We heard them say our decision must weigh the needs of “victims and survivors.” And we heard them say our decision can “injec[t] hope into the lives of those whom will be eligible.”...

I want to give our witnesses and the public some insight into how we Commissioners will make our decision about retroactivity. Many of the witnesses speaking today will talk about the costs of any decision we make.  Let me reassure you: we take pains to consider all these costs.  We consider the time judges and their staffs will have to expend dealing with filings for reduced sentences.  We consider the additional resources expended on re-entry and supervision.  But we also consider the financial costs of continuing to incarcerate someone, which stands at roughly $44,000 per person per year with the BOP -- which is $40,000 more than the annual cost of supervision, and which increases year after year after year.  And we consider a cost that has little to do with docket sizes or dollars and cents: the moral price of incarcerating someone for longer than is necessary. As my former colleague Judge George Hazel so aptly put it, “Liberty is the norm; every moment of incarceration should be justified.” Whatever decision the Commission makes on retroactivity, I promise that it will reflect every cost, every benefit, and every perspective we hear about today.

The Chair is only one of seven votes on the Commission, but these comments reinforce my previous guess that the Commission is likely to new criminal history rules fully retroactive.  Yet there still could be devil in the details.

Some prior related posts:

• Highlighting US Sentencing Commission's significant amendments to federal guidelines' criminal history rules
• US Sentencing Commission publishes detailed retroactivity analysis for its amendments to federal guidelines' criminal history rules
• US Sentencing Commission schedules public hearing to consider retroactivity of amendments to criminal history rules 
• Dynamic comments submitted to US Sentencing Commission as it considers retroactivity of new criminal history guidelines