Statement of Stephen Strott, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division Before the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Concerning Sentencing Reform on May 3, 1984

• NCJ Number: 94483
• Author(s): S S Trott
• Date Published: 1984
• Length: 44 pages
• Corporate Author: US Dept of Justice
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This testimony discusses the need for reform of Federal sentencing laws and proposed legislation for achieving such reform.

Abstract

The Department of Justice has proposed a new system of sentencing which would give judges a highly sophisticated set of guidelines. In this system, there would be a specified reason stated for the sentence (punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, etc.). However, in reviewing four proposed pieces of legislation -- H.R. 2013, H.R. 3128, H.R. 4554, and H.R. 4827 -- the Department of Justice has found each of them lacking in needed elements and sometimes causing more problems than they solve. Three of the bills fail to include just punishment as a purpose of sentencing, and three do not contain comprehensive sentencing packages. H.R. 3128 and H.R. 4554 neither provide for a full-time sentencing commission nor offer guidelines to that commission. H.R. 4554 and H.R. 4827 contain provisions that would make sentencing hearings into full-fledged adversarial proceedings. These two bills also require the sentencing judge to begin his consideration of an appropriate sentence with the question of whether unsupervised probation is suitable. One of the worst features of both H.R. 3128 and H.R. 4554 is that they retain the Parole Commission and vestiges of indeterminate sentencing. H.R. 4554 permits the defendant to appeal a sentence while forbidding the Government to do the same. This bill and H.R. 4827 include provisions about the defendant's civil rights which is inappropriate in the context of sentencing, though it may be an important issue elsewhere. The Justice Department opposes further elements of H.R. 4554 and H.R. 4827, specifically that they fail to include a restitution requirement for felons on parole, that they continue specialized facilities for youthful offenders, that they lack provisions for appeal by the Government, and that they restrict the power of a probation officer to arrest a person under his supervision. Thirteen notes are included.