American Bar Association Outlines Better Approach to Reducing Prison Sentences in Special Circumstances
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 16, 2006 – Testifying on behalf of the American Bar Association before the United States Sentencing Commission yesterday, Margaret Colgate Love called prison term reductions in extraordinary circumstances a congressionally designed “safety valve” and “critical to the system’s fairness as a whole.” Love, a lawyer in private practice in Washington, D.C., and a past chair of the ABA Criminal Justice Section Committee on Corrections and Sentencing, spoke during a hearing on “Proposed Guidelines Amendment on Reduction of Term of Imprisonment Based on Bureau of Prisons Motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).”
Love noted the importance of having some way for a court to review cases where there have been fundamental changes in a prisoner’s circumstances since the sentence was imposed, noting that “executive clemency, the historic remedy of last resort for cases of extraordinary need or desert, cannot be relied upon in the current political climate.” She said that “the government should find it useful to have the option of making a mid-course correction if the penalty originally imposed appears unduly harsh or unjust.” But the Bureau of Prisons has been hesitant to bring cases to the court’s attention unless the prisoner is near death.
Love’s testimony focused on the criteria to be applied for a reduction of term of imprisonment, and a list of specific examples, as the proposed new United States Sentencing Commission policy statement does not address either. The criteria for granting a sentence reduction motion, Love suggested, should be: “1) that the circumstances under which sentence was originally imposed must have fundamentally changed; and 2) the grounds for reducing the sentence could have been properly considered in imposing sentence in the first instance.”
Love added that “changes in the law as well as changes in a prisoner’s personal circumstances may be considered and several changes may be considered in combination. It should not matter whether or not the changes could have been foreseen by the court and it is not necessary that the changed circumstances relate to the prisoner’s medical condition.”
Love also offered a series of specific examples a court could consider when deciding to grant a sentence reduction motion, including: a terminal illness; an incapacitating injury or illness; old age coupled with infirmity; death or incapacitation of the only family members capable of caring for a prisoner’s minor children; unwarranted disparity of sentences among codefendants; changes in applicable law that are not made retroactive; and unrewarded service to the government.
“Any of these circumstances, as well as rehabilitation, may justify sentence reduction when considered in combination, as long as they could have been properly considered in imposing the sentence in the first instance,” said Love.
Calling the Bureau of Prisons’ hesitance to file sentence reduction motions “institutionalized,” and noting that experts have partially linked the Bureau’s reluctance to grant such reductions to the lack of codified standards and policy guidance from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Love said the commission could play an important role in reinvigorating this tool of the criminal justice system. Love said the ABA urges the commission “to give explicit policy guidance in this area, to spell out the statutory criteria and to give ’specific examples’ of situations warranting sentence reduction, so that the statute can begin to function as the ‘safety valve’ that Congress intended it to be.” At the conclusion of Love’s testimony, Commissioner Reuben Castillo invited the ABA to assist the commission in drafting the required policy statement.
The ABA has long been concerned with improving the effectiveness of criminal sanctions and reducing recidivism. In recent years, following a 2003 speech to the ABA in which U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy addressed problems with sentencing and prison conditions, the ABA established a commission to investigate the state of sentencing and corrections in the United States and adopted additional policy designed to serve as a blueprint for reform. The ABA Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions, which Love chairs, implements those policies adopted by the ABA.
With more than 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law in a democratic society.
