WASHINGTON, D.C. – Judge Carlton W. Reeves, Chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, today announced the appointment of nine individuals to serve on the newly established Sentence Impact Advisory Group (SIAG). Advisory groups provide Commissioners with important perspectives that help them in policy making and ensure fairness in federal sentencing. The newly appointed SIAG members include those individuals who have been impacted by federal sentencing or have family members that have been.
Judge Reeves said, “I am very grateful to those who have accepted this appointment to SIAG and thank them for their willingness to serve. As the Commission works to fulfill our mission of reviewing and revising federal Sentencing Guidelines, SIAG will lend an important voice alongside our existing advisory groups for victims, probation officers, defense practitioners, and tribal issues.
“The Commission’s advisory groups are valuable to our work, as are the unique perspectives and expertise of each and every Commissioner. But none of us have experienced a single day in prison. I have no doubt that SIAG will provide the Commission with essential input and perspectives in all of our work.”
New SIAG members are as follows:
…
THIS IS a step forward for FED Crimes, knowing they might actually take their in put to use and to fruition and allow diff perspectives of crimes on that board. Good deal, as long as this Admin stays out of it. this may MAY be an improvement, as Janice has said FED CRIMES SENTENCES are usually harsher than State sentencing. Makes sense hopn they have some Tribal council join
It is commendable and a positive step forward to allow previously impacted individuals a “seat at the table” with U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC).
However, as I have commented in a recent post,
the USSC studies sentencing issues and then submits their recommendations to Congress. Sadly, Congress rarely enacts these recommendations into law.
For example, in 2012 the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) spent a couple of years reviewing sentencing disparities and overly harsh penalties for the crime of possession and distribution of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). They recommended numerous common-sense legal reforms, but Congress mostly ignored this, making only minor adjustments. (Then-Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, now a U.S. Supreme Court justice, was a USSC member and played a key role in the promulgatioin of findings and recommendations).
Since the publication of the USSC’s findings in this area (CSAM sentencing), many federal judges have justified downward departures (some very significant departures, including sentences of probation instead of incarceration), all based upon the findings in this USSC report.
I am hopeful that this new constellation of USSC participants will have a similar positive influence on sentencing judges. I am regretfully very pessimistic as to Congress adopting any recommendations from this body. I pray that I am wrong.
What relevancy do these folks have to the position specifically? They are just names at this point with quals that others have reviewed and approved for their participation, but to those who are on the outside, are they justifiable to be on the panel? If so, how (and more than just what was written above)?