Priorities Reflect Calls to Simplify Sentencing, Reduce the Costs of Unnecessary Incarceration,
and Promote Public Safety
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Each year, the bipartisan U.S. Sentencing Commission votes to adopt priorities that will guide its annual policymaking process. This summer, the Commission solicited priorities from the public, asking how the agency can improve federal sentencing. In response, the Commission received more than 1,200 pages of insightful comments from judges, members of Congress, executive branch officials, probation officers, advisory groups, attorneys, professors, advocates, organizations, incarcerated individuals, and others.
Today, the Commission voted unanimously to commit to prioritize one or more of the clear themes that emerged from the comments it has received, which included:
Simplifying the federal Sentencing Guidelines and clarifying their role in sentencing. This includes revision of the “categorical approach” for purposes of the career offender guideline and possibly amending the Guidelines Manual to address the three-step process and the use of departures and policy statements relating to specific personal characteristics;
Reducing the costs of unnecessary incarceration;
Promoting public safety;
Improving community supervision;
Expanding the Commission’s use of expertise, evidence, and best practices; and
Promoting evidence-based approaches to offense and individual characteristics.
“Today’s vote proves one thing: when you speak to the Commission, you will be heard,” said Judge Carlton W. Reeves, Chair of the Commission. “Our final priorities will allow us to give each public comment the attention it deserves. This is the first step in translating the public’s priorities into policies that improve federal sentencing. As we move forward, we will continue to seek out and obtain guidance from the public and stakeholders across the criminal justice system.”
“Today’s vote proves one thing: when you speak to the Commission, you will be heard,” said Judge Carlton W. Reeves, Chair of the Commission. “Our final priorities will allow us to give each public comment the attention it deserves. This is the first step in translating the public’s priorities into policies that improve federal sentencing. As we move forward, we will continue to seek out and obtain guidance from the public and stakeholders across the criminal justice system.”
Click here to read the full article, watch the video, and view the full list of priorities
This is a huge document (1,207 pages in the PDF) so scrolling the entire thing will take some time.
However, I will point out this one entry I haphazardly found under #6 Circuit Conflicts that directly impacts some of those here in the forum (highlighted link):
#6 Circuit Conflicts, USSC copy Team FED CHICKS
local copy Team FED CHICKS
(“We would like to introduce Team FED CHICKS, (Fighting Exclusions and Disqualifications for zero Criminal History Internet Convictions with Knowledge and Solutions). We are a small, but dedicated team of justice-impacted family members who love and support spouses, partners, children, parents, and siblings who have zero criminal history and are currently in federal custody for non-contact internet-based sex offense convictions.”)
This one entry will resonate with people here and across the country who fight the battles written herein this post.
With the being said, it would be helpful, IMO, if you find an entry that is applicable to the SOL environment, note it here with a link for others to read and maybe the @moderator and/or @ACSOL will take those entries and put them above at the bottom of the main post as they have for other additional articles for direct reference for reading instead of having to sort through the comments.
BTW, a quick word query resulted in “sex” being found 465 times in the entire doc, so take it as you wish regarding the reading material at hand, but there seems to be some interest in help those who are with sex related convictions in their history. There are a large number of judges, et al in the legal realm who see problems with sentencing who have provided comments as well.