State Sentencing and Amendment 821: Reducing Disparities in State vs Federal Drug Sentences

State Sentencing and Amendment 821: Reducing Disparities in State vs Federal Drug Sentences

The recent passage of Amendment 821 by the U.S. Sentencing Commission represents a major step forward in reducing disparities between state and federal drug sentences. This amendment, which goes into effect on November 1, 2023, makes several changes to the federal sentencing guidelines that will likely result in lower sentences for many drug offenders. In this article, we’ll break down what Amendment 821 does, why it was passed, and what impact it may have on state and federal sentencing disparities going forward.

What Does Amendment 821 Do?

Amendment 821 makes two main changes to the federal sentencing guidelines:

• It changes how criminal history points are calculated, reducing sentences for offenders in lower criminal history categories.
• It expands the criteria that judges can consider in granting “compassionate release” sentence reductions.

Let’s look at each of these changes in more detail.

Criminal History Points

Under the previous federal sentencing guidelines, offenders received criminal history points for every prior conviction. This meant that someone with multiple minor offenses could end up in a high criminal history category, leading to a longer sentence.

Amendment 821 changes this by eliminating points for certain minor prior convictions, including:

• Misdemeanor drug possession
• Driving with a suspended/revoked license
• Public intoxication
• Trespassing
• Minor traffic offenses

By excluding these types of common, low-level offenses from criminal history scoring, Amendment 821 will result in lower sentences for many offenders, especially those convicted of drug crimes. The U.S. Sentencing Commission estimates around 2,400 inmates will see lower guideline ranges under this part of the amendment.

Compassionate Release

The second major change in Amendment 821 expands the criteria judges can consider for “compassionate release.” This is a program that allows inmates to seek early release from prison under “extraordinary and compelling circumstances.”

Previously, compassionate release was limited to cases like terminal illness. But under Amendment 821, judges can now also consider factors like:

• The inmate’s age at the time of offense and sentencing
• Proximity to release date
• Inmate’s post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts

By expanding the qualifying circumstances, Amendment 821 opens the door for more inmates to petition for early release. The Sentencing Commission estimates around 7,000 current inmates could qualify for sentence reductions under this part of the amendment.

Why Was Amendment 821 Passed?

The passage of Amendment 821 reflects an increasing bipartisan consensus around the need for criminal justice reform. Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have argued that outdated sentencing policies have led to unnecessarily long prison terms that disproportionately impact minorities and the poor. This amendment aims to address some of those critiques.

More specifically, supporters of Amendment 821 say it helps reduce three key problems with the old guidelines:

1. Overemphasis on criminal history – Minor prior offenses, especially from decades ago, often have little bearing on a person’s likelihood to reoffend. But under the old rules, they triggered substantial increases in sentence length.
2. Harsh treatment of drug crimes – Relative to many other offenses, sentences for drug crimes were often disproportionately long. Amendment 821 helps recalibrate these sentence lengths.
3. Limited compassionate release – Restrictive qualifying criteria prevented judges from considering individual circumstances that may warrant early release. Amendment 821 gives judges more discretion in this area.

In general, supporters of the amendment say it represents an incremental but meaningful step toward a federal criminal justice system that is fairer, more proportional, and more focused on rehabilitation rather than just punishment.

Impact on State vs Federal Sentencing Disparities

One of the key motivations behind Amendment 821 was reducing disparities between federal and state sentences for similar crimes. This disparity stems from several factors:

• Harsher federal sentencing guidelines, especially for drug crimes
• Mandatory minimums that limit judicial discretion in federal cases
• Differences in availability of parole, earned time credits, and other early release programs

This can result in situations where a drug crime prosecuted at the federal level carries a sentence 5-10 times longer than if prosecuted by a state. Amendment 821 aims to narrow these gaps.

While state laws vary widely, the reforms in Amendment 821 move the federal guidelines closer to the overall sentencing norms at the state level in several ways:

• The changes to criminal history scoring make the federal guidelines less punitive toward offenders with minor criminal backgrounds.
• The compassionate release reforms give federal judges more discretion, similar to most state judges.
• The reduction in sentences for drug crimes also brings federal guidelines closer in line with state norms.

However, some key differences remain. Many states have taken steps like repealing mandatory minimums, reducing sentences for drug possession, and expanding parole eligibility. The federal system still lags behind most states in these areas. So while Amendment 821 moves in the right direction, additional reforms at the federal level will likely be needed to fully align state and federal sentencing practices.

What Comes Next?

The full impact of Amendment 821 remains to be seen. The reforms are projected to reduce sentences for around 11,000 current federal inmates. But some advocates say the changes don’t go far enough. For example, the amendment doesn’t make any direct changes to mandatory minimums, which remain much higher at the federal level compared to most states.

Many experts think the passage of Amendment 821 signals a broader rethinking of sentencing policy that’s likely to continue. Some other reforms that may be considered going forward include:

• Further changes to mandatory minimums
• Increased use of diversion programs as an alternative to incarceration
• Expanded eligibility for parole and earned time credits
• Making more sentencing reforms retroactive

Ultimately, many hope Amendment 821 represents just the first step on a longer road toward a federal criminal justice system rooted in fairness, proportionality, and rehabilitation. Only time will tell how much impact this amendment has and what additional reforms it might inspire going forward.