Statement of Steven L. Chanenson Before the United States Sentencing Commission Regarding Retroactivity of Crack Guidelines Amendments (November 2007)

Chanenson, Steven L.

doi:10.1525/fsr.2007.20.2.146

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The USSC recognized that providing more guidance would be needed to increase uniformity in the retroactive application of the crack guideline in light of potentially contradictory policy goals (Chanenson, 2007). The USSC and the AO sought to structure courts’ discretion in implementation with summits, especially since time was of the essence and because districts varied in their crack retroactivity caseloads (Schmitt et al, 2007).…”

Section: The Policy Of Crack Retroactivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Interdistrict Variation in the Implementation of the Crack Retroactivity Policy by U.S. District Courts

Reitler

Frank

2012

Criminal Justice Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2007, after years of dissatisfaction with the 100-to-1 disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, the U.S. Sentencing Commission amended the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, reducing by two levels the base offense level assigned to threshold quantities of crack cocaine. The amendment was subsequently made retroactive, which required the federal courts to process approximately 20,000 prisoner motions for sentence reduction. Using data collected from a case study of one particular district as well as a survey of representatives from the 94 federal judicial districts, this study examines the process of "crack retroactivity" implementation. The authors found that court communities varied greatly with respect to their organizational arrangements, procedures, and motivations. Although U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services played an important role in every district, how and why districts organized to respond to crack retroactivity varied. The study findings also indicate that sentencing procedures may be another mechanism through which location affects sentencing outcomes.

show abstract

Section: The Policy Of Crack Retroactivitymentioning

confidence: 99%