Views from Reform Advocates on Amendment 821 Retroactivity

On August 24, 2023, the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to make Amendment 821 retroactive, allowing thousands of federal inmates to petition for reduced sentences beginning February 1, 2024[1]. This decision has major implications for criminal justice reform advocates and those directly impacted by federal drug sentences. Here’s an overview of the views from reform groups on this important development:

Support from Advocates for Retroactive Application

Many advocacy and faith groups have strongly supported making Amendment 821 retroactive. For example, FAMM and ACLU urged the Commission to apply both Parts A and B retroactively in a letter this June. They argued the changes would promote fairness, reduce unwarranted disparities, and improve public safety by allowing people to return to their families and communities sooner[5].

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund also submitted a comment highlighting how Amendment 821 would help address racially disparate impact of certain sentencing enhancements[5]. They cited research showing Black people are more likely to be negatively impacted by criminal history calculations.

In addition, over 100 faith leaders signed a letter calling for retroactivity. They emphasized the importance of redemption and allowing for second chances. Many talked about the transformative impact of Amendment 821 in reuniting families and strengthening communities[5].

Concerns from Some Advocates About Limiting Retroactivity

While applauding the Commission’s vote on retroactivity, some groups expressed disappointment that only Part A of Amendment 821 was made retroactive. For example, Prison Policy Initiative noted that Part B would have had a meaningful impact on sentence lengths for some individuals. They encouraged the Commission to reconsider expanding retroactivity to Part B in the future.

The ACLU also submitted a comment criticizing the Commission’s tentative decision on retroactivity. They argued restricting retroactivity ignores the evidence and intent behind passage of Amendment 821. The ACLU believes applying both Parts A and B retroactively would better promote just punishment and avoid unwarranted disparities.

Projected Impact of Amendment 821 Retroactivity

The Commission estimates around 2,660 federal inmates will be eligible for sentence reductions under Part A retroactivity, with an average reduction of 29 months. Overall, the Commission predicts retroactive application of Amendment 821 will reduce sentences by a total of about 11.7% for qualifying inmates[2].

However, some advocates caution that not everyone eligible will actually receive a sentence reduction. Courts have discretion in deciding individual cases, so the exact impact remains uncertain. There are also important limitations – Amendment 821 retroactivity does not apply to career offenders or people convicted of serious violent felonies.

While uncertain, advocates generally agree any sentence reductions represent meaningful progress. Shorter sentences will reunite families, save taxpayer dollars, and help address over-incarceration. Amendment 821 retroactivity is an incremental but important step in creating a more just federal criminal justice system.

Looking Ahead – Implementation and Future Reform

Many reform advocates argue more work remains even after implementation of Amendment 821 retroactivity. Some groups emphasize the need for expanded reentry support and services for returning citizens. Others point to additional sentencing reforms on the horizon – such as the pending Eliminating a Quantifiably Unjust Application of the Law (EQUAL) Act.

At the same time, advocates recognize implementing retroactivity will take sustained effort. Groups like Prison Policy Initiative are developing resources to help people prepare petitions and navigate the process. They also plan to monitor implementation and any barriers that arise.

Overall, Amendment 821 represents an important step forward due to the collaboration between reform advocates, directly impacted people, and policymakers. There is more work to be done, but many see the Commission’s vote as affirming the broad support behind rethinking outdated and unjust sentencing policies.