Using Amendment 821 as a Model for State-Level Sentencing Reform

Using Amendment 821 as a Model for State-Level Sentencing Reform

The recent passage of Amendment 821 by the U.S. Sentencing Commission provides a great model for reforming overly harsh sentencing laws at the state level. Amendment 821, which goes into effect February 2024, will retroactively reduce federal prison sentences for around 20,000 people by recalculating criminal history points and limiting the impact of “status points.” Status points refer to the extra criminal history points someone receives just for committing a crime while on probation, parole, etc. This overly punitive practice has contributed to mass incarceration without improving public safety.

While Amendment 821 only applies to federal cases, states should follow its lead. Many states use sentencing guidelines and criminal history point systems similar to the federal ones. For example, in my home state we give extra points for committing a crime while under supervision. We should reconsider the fairness and efficacy of these practices. Does it really make sense to keep punishing people more severely for old crimes they already served time for? Research shows overly long prison terms do not reduce recidivism as well as rehabilitation programs and community supervision. Also, giving “status points” disproportionately harms poor people and racial minorities who face more police scrutiny and barriers to success. Let’s take inspiration from Amendment 821 and find more just alternatives.

How Amendment 821 Reforms Federal Sentencing

Specifically, Amendment 821 makes two major changes:

1. It limits the total effect of status points to no more than 2 criminal history points. So even if someone commits a crime while on probation, parole, etc., their criminal history can go up by max 2 points instead of 3, 4, or more.
2. It reduces criminal history points for certain prior sentences like misdemeanors, juvenile crimes, and very old offenses. The changes are designed to only count serious and recent crimes when determining someone’s criminal history score.

These commonsense reforms will help fix glaring injustices in the current federal system. I’ve seen similar problems here in my state. We give status points for every type of supervision, with no limit on the total impact. We also count all prior convictions the same, no matter how minor or how long ago. Our sentencing guidelines are supposed to promote public safety and fairness but instead they often punish poverty and addiction. We urgently need reforms modeled on Amendment 821.

How States Can Follow the Federal Example

State legislatures or sentencing commissions should take these steps:

1. Cap the total effect of status points to 1 or 2 points maximum. Don’t endlessly punish people more for old convictions.
2. Reduce points for minor prior crimes like misdemeanors, especially from long ago. Only consider serious and recent felonies.
3. Eliminate extra points for juvenile crimes committed under 18. Teens deserve a clean slate to turn their lives around.
4. Let sentences for low-level drug and property crimes expire from criminal history calculations, for example after 10 years clean.
5. Give judges more discretion to depart from rigid sentencing guidelines, considering individual circumstances.

These kinds of reforms can help fix the “trial penalty,” where defendants get punished extra harshly for exercising their right to a trial instead of pleading guilty. Prosecutors often intimidate defendants into pleading by threatening to file charges that would jack up their criminal history score. Giving judges more flexibility would help counteract this coercive practice. Defendants should not feel forced to forfeit their day in court.

Another benefit of reducing criminal history points is prosecutors will have less leverage to coerce cooperation. Defendants often end up assisting questionable investigations just to avoid a higher sentence. By recalibrating criminal history calculations, we can promote justice and help check government power.

Responding to Potential Objections

Some may argue we need tough criminal history rules to incapacitate career criminals and deter repeat offenses. However, research shows long prison terms are actually criminogenic – they make people more likely to reoffend compared to community supervision. Excessive sentences also deepen poverty and destabilize families and communities.

Others contend focusing on criminal history instead of current charges is fairer, since it’s based on proven past actions, not unproven accusations. But outdated and excessive criminal history points often punish poverty more than crime. Minor drug and property crimes driven by addiction and economic desperation should not permanently ruin someone’s future.

Some prosecutors may oppose reforms that reduce their leverage, but their objections reflect a troubling view of justice as a zero-sum game. Sentencing should not be strategic gamesmanship but an impartial process that promotes public safety and rehabilitation. Prosecutors have plenty of power already.

Victims’ advocates often support punitive sentencing policies out of understandable anger and pain. However, excessively long prison terms do little to help victims heal while draining resources from programs that could. A justice system guided by reason and mercy better serves victims and society.

The Time is Now for Reform

Growing public awareness of mass incarceration has created momentum for change. Amendment 821 shows even the punitive federal system recognizes the need to temper harsh sentencing practices. States across the country should seize this opportunity to implement reforms. Call and write your state representatives urging them to introduce legislation modeled on Amendment 821.

Some will resist change out of fear, inertia, or self-interest. But we cannot let unjust laws continue ruining lives and communities. With inspiration from Amendment 821, now is the time to enact state-level sentencing reforms that enhance justice, public safety, and redemption.

References

Here are the sources cited in this article:

• Overview of Amendment 821 reforms
• U.S. Sentencing Commission report on Amendment 821
• Text of retroactive application of Amendment 821
• Federal Register notice on Amendment 821
• Article on assisting with resentencing under Amendment 821
• Analysis of Commission vote on retroactivity