Angiulo: Non-Violent Drug Offenders May See Federal Prison Stays Shortened
Monday, July 21, 2014
The war on drugs has been going on for years. During that time lengthy prison sentences, often longer than the minimum mandatory time written into laws, have resulted in dramatically high rates of incarceration. With time, the effectiveness of these sentences in deterring people from distributing drugs and otherwise preventing crime has been questioned. The sheer number of prisoners in the U.S. system highlights and compounds the problem of extended prison sentences.
Of note is the shift in thinking by both law enforcement, especially Attorney General Eric Holder, and those entities responsible for sentencing policies. The United States Sentencing Commission, also known as the “USSC,” is the group responsible for deciding the range of how long people should be incarcerated given the facts of a case. The past several years have seen dramatic changes in the guidelines they produce, as well as legislation, regarding non-violent drug offenses.
In 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act passed by Congress resulted in major changes to sentences for non-violent offenses regarding cocaine base, also known as crack cocaine. Not only were people sentenced to less time but, in 2011, the new law was applied retroactively, which means that people who were sentenced before it was passed were also extended the benefit of reduced terms.
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTMore recently, during the Spring of 2014, the USSC reviewed its policies regarding other non-violent drug offenses. The short version of the amendment they generated is that defendants, on the whole, had the potential of doing less time. To be sure, the type of cases that make it to federal court are more than just personal use amounts held by addicts. Typically, these cases involve significant weights, like pounds or multiple kilograms, and defendants who are in the business of trafficking such substances. Even acknowledging such facts, the USSC took testimony from many sources on the topic and came to some conclusions. One of those conclusions is that non-violent drug offenders should be subject to the minimum mandatory sentences of the relevant statutes rather than making longer sentences the norm because reduced terms of imprisonment are sufficient to achieve the purposes of sentencing.
Within a month of proposing these downward adjustments to Congress, the Sentencing Commission released a study about retroactive application of the shorter sentences. These behaviors are still crimes; the affected people are still convicted and not every inmate will be released sooner. There are, however, approximately 50,000 offenders who could be eligible, over a period of years, for reductions leading to new average sentences that are 23 months shorter.
After reviewing this study, and conducting further investigation, the Sentencing Commission voted unanimously on July 18, 2014 to apply the downward amendments retroactively. Two important things to know about this are: 1) Congress still has to ratify the retroactive amendment, and 2) reduction in sentences won't be automatic and won't happen all at once.
Any sentence reduction would occur only after judicial involvement and can only be implemented sometime after November 1, 2015. Since the Sentencing Commission is a branch of the judiciary, they have the important role of balancing the interests of public safety and individual liberty. In doing so, they crafted this proposed amendment with both concerns in mind.
The USSC sees three major purposes for setting release dates out into the future. First, given the number of sentences and people to be reviewed, the additional time is needed for the courts to properly determine an individual's suitability for a shorter sentence. Second, if a person is eligible for a shorter sentence, the delay until November 1, 2015 gives them a chance to participate in reentry programs- while incarcerated- to encourage successful reintegration. Finally, many people who serve prison time will also have a period of probation after as part of their original sentence; since nothing about the July 18th retroactivity amendment changes that, the agencies responsible for probationers also need time to prepare for the increased responsibility.
The public opinion surrounding non-violent drug offenses has been changing for a number of years and public policy seems to be as well. Just like any policy, however, it is only with time and study that we will see whether both public safety and personal liberty are served by the new laws and sentencing guidelines.
Leonardo Angiulo is an Attorney with the firm of Glickman, Sugarman, Kneeland & Gribouski in Worcester handling legal matters across the Commonwealth. He can be reached by email at [email protected].
Related Articles
- Leonardo Angiulo: Something To Be Proud Of On Independence Day
- Leonardo Angiulo: What’s Next For America’s Voting Rights Act
- Leonardo Angiulo: Who Wins in the NFL Concussion Settlement?
- Leonardo Angiulo: Why They Don’t Have The Death Penalty in Mass.
- Leonardo Angiulo: What You May Not Know About The DOMA Decision
- Leonardo Angiulo: Aaron Hernandez Should Probably Lawyer Up
- Leonardo Angiulo: MA Court Takes Hit of Justice in Marijuana Rulings
- Leonardo Angiulo: This Is Our City, You Play By Our Rules
- Leonardo Angiulo: How Much Privacy Did You Lose Last Week? A Lot.
- Angiulo: Comparing Legalized Prostitution in Canada versus America
- Leonardo Angiulo: U.S. Supreme Court Renews 2nd Amendment Debate
- Angiulo: Supreme Court Unanimous on I.R.S. Summons and Scrutiny
- Angiulo: Supreme Court Shuts Down Innovative Aereo TV Service
- Leonardo Angiulo: Citizens Recording Official Police Business
- Leonardo Angiulo: Dissecting the Proposed MA Firearms Legislation
- Leonardo Angiulo: Combating the Effects of Heroin Addiction
- Leonardo Angiulo: How State Law Can Be Used To Promote Clean Energy
- Leonardo Angiulo: A Good Day for FBI, A Bad Day for Politicians
- Leonardo Angiulo: US Incarceration Rate May be Unsustainable
- Leonardo Angiulo: Supreme Court Rules Raging Bull Lawsuit to Go Another Round in Federal Court
