Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts

UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION

Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts

AGENCY: United States Sentencing Commission.

ACTION: Notice of priority areas for Commission research and amendment

study. Request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: As part of its statutory continuing responsibility to analyze

sentencing issues, including the operation of the federal sentencing

guidelines, the Commission has identified certain priorities as the

principal focus of its work in the coming year and, in some cases,

beyond. Following the practice of past years, the Commission invites

comment on identified priorities (including the scope and manner of

study, particular problem areas and possible solutions, and any other

matters relevant to an identified priority). The Commission also

invites comment on any other aspect of guideline application that it

should address during the coming year.

DATES: Public comment should be received not later than October 31,

1995, to be considered by the Commission in shaping its work during the

next year.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: United States Sentencing Commission, One

Columbus Circle, N.E., Suite 2-500 South, Washington, D.C. 20002-8002,

Attention: Public Information--Priorities Comment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Courlander, Public Information

Specialist, Telephone: (202) 273-4590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Sentencing Commission, an

independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States

Government, is empowered by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 994(a) to promulgate

sentencing guidelines and policy statements for federal sentencing

courts. The statute further directs the Commission to periodically

review and revise guidelines previously promulgated and authorizes it

to submit guideline amendments to the Congress no later than the first

day of May each year. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 994(o), (p).

As in previous years, the Commission uses this announcement to

solicit formal and informal comment regarding certain areas upon which

the Commission expects to concentrate its attention during the coming

year. This notice provides interested persons with an opportunity to

inform the Commission of legal, operational, or policy concerns within

the identified areas relating to the guidelines and to suggest specific

solutions and alternative approaches.

Following are the priority areas for amendment study, research, or

other planned actions identified by the Commission. Where possible, a

general timeframe for the initiative is indicated. These timeframes

should be considered subject to change as the Commission deems

necessary.

Measuring the Success of the Guidelines: A staff working

group, under the direction of an outside consultant, has undertaken a

number of projects that will measure the success of the guidelines in

meeting the goals set forth in the Sentencing Reform Act. Projects

related to just punishment, recidivism, and selective incapacitation

are well underway. Other projects will examine offense seriousness,

real-offense sentencing, judicial discretion, criminal history,

alternatives to incarceration, and disparity.

Guideline Simplification and Modification: A staff working

group, under the direction of an outside consultant, will focus on

simplifying and improving the guidelines. This effort will be informed

substantially by the work, discussed above, measuring the success of

the guidelines. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. Sec. 994 (o), (p), and

(x), the Commission intends that this process will involve consultation

with a wide variety of interested groups and individuals. The

Commission has prepared the following purpose statement for this

working group:

Working Group on Guideline Simplification: Purpose Statement

I. Introduction

The Sentencing Commission, at its May meeting, identified

comprehensive review of the federal guidelines system as a top agency

priority. The Commission is well positioned to undertake this task,

given the vast amounts of information available from the more than

225,000 cases sentenced under the guidelines during the past eight

years, numerous appellate opinions issued on various guidelines issues,

the growing body of academic literature and public comment, and the

extensive empirical analysis of the guidelines conducted to date.

This purpose statement outlines the working group's proposed scope

of inquiry and methodology.

II. Working Group Mandate

The objective of the working group's comprehensive review of the

guidelines is twofold: 1) to reduce the complexity of guideline

application (``simplification''); and 2) to improve federal sentencing

by working closely with the judiciary and others to refine the

guidelines (revisiting the balance of judicial flexibility/discretion

and the availability of alternative punishments). The group will

comprehensively and aggressively assess each major section of the

guidelines, critique application complexities, and develop options for

Commission consideration. Complexity is viewed as the source of

confusion and frustration in guideline application. Moreover, this

confusion results in unreliable application and judicial resistance--

two outcomes that undermine the effectiveness of the guidelines.

Guideline complexity derives, in part, from fundamental decisions

made by the original Commission in its effort to meet the Sentencing

Reform Act's twin goals of: 1) assuring that the purposes of sentencing

are met (i.e., just punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and

rehabilitation); and 2) providing certainty and fairness in meeting the

purposes of sentencing while avoiding unwarranted disparities between

similarly situated defendants (see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 991(b)(1)). To ensure

that the ramifications of all options for change are clear, the group

will highlight the broader policy implications of its proposals (e.g.,

its effect on proportionality or a judge's ability to individualize

sentences).

III. Methodology

The working group proposes the following strategy to assist

commissioners in their deliberations on how they might simplify and

improve the guidelines system. The group will prepare concise issue

papers on major guideline topics to provide a foundation for Commission

consideration of relevant issues and possible sentencing models. Each

paper will:

Review the history behind the original policy decision so

as to ensure that the Commission is sensitive to the underlying

principles and the impact of any revisions on these principles;

Assess how the particular guideline is working (e.g.,

application complexities; frequency of use identified through

monitoring data);

Summarize information needs that might reasonably assist

the

[[Page 49317]]

Commission's decision making on the topic; and

Outline broad options for refinement.

These papers will provide sound bases for commissioners, staff, and

the public to understand the current guidelines and assess any

proposals for change.

The group is currently drafting issue papers on the following

topics:

1. Sentencing Reform Act (and subsequent sentencing legislation)

2. Drafting process used by initial Commission; major changes since

that time

3. Real offense sentencing (Relevant Conduct)

4. Criminal history

5. Level of detail (specific offense characteristics)

6. Chapter Three adjustments

7. Departures/offender characteristics

8. Sentencing table/sentencing ranges

9. Availability of probation/split sentences (alternatives)

10. Multiple counts

This methodology will enable staff to provide the Commission the

full range of options for reviewing and revising the guidelines. In its

review, the working group will examine how state guideline systems have

addressed issues that judges and practitioners have found particularly

complex in the federal system. In addition, the group will consult

closely with judges and practitioners and solicit a wide variety of

public comment from the Criminal Law Committee of the Judicial

Conference, Practitioners' and Probation Officers' Advisory Groups,

Department of Justice, Federal and Community Defenders, and others.

Finally, the working group will analyze all responsible suggestions for

guideline reform from outside individuals and groups.

The simplification process should be developmental and done with

caution because significant changes may result in unforeseen anomalies.

Therefore, it is important that as the simplification working group

develops proposals it ensures that the proposals: 1) be consistent with

the Sentencing Reform Act; 2) be sensitive to case law; and 3) be aware

of the underlying premises that the previous Commission used in

developing the guidelines. This caution will ensure that the guidelines

are an evolving set of standards that change as information and

experience buttresses the need for change.

Evaluation of Commission Staff Resources: The Commission

has begun a program to measure the use of staff resources as presently

allocated and to explore changes to the current staff resource

allocation. This review is examining present procedures and processes

to improve efficiency and determine strengths and weaknesses in various

Commission functional components.

Organizational Guidelines for Environmental Offenses:

Development of fine guidelines for organizational defendants convicted

of environmental offenses remains under consideration; however, the

Commission expects that the guideline assessment and simplification

efforts set forth above will receive priority attention.

Substantial Assistance Working Group: This ongoing working

group has recently completed the data collection portion of its study

effort. The group is expecting to issue a report this fall.

Implementation of Crime-related Legislation: The Congress

is now considering legislation concerning terrorism, firearms, and

other crime-related issues. The Commission will move promptly to

implement any enacted legislation affecting criminal penalties through

the promulgation of necessary guideline amendments or other actions as

appropriate.

Miscellaneous Issues: The Commission expects to propose

for comment amendments to the food and drug guidelines. Amendments

addressing some of the more important guideline application issues

involving conflicting court interpretations also may be considered.

The Commission welcomes comments on the aforementioned priorities

as well as any other aspect of guideline application or implementation

of the Sentencing Reform Act.

Authority: 28 U.S.C. Sec. 994 (a), (o), (p).

Richard P. Conaboy,

Chairman.

[FR Doc. 95-23552 Filed 9-21-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-40-P