Jones v. United States: Punishment Without Conviction?

View image | gettyimages.com

Federal sentencing law is widely applied to punish offenders not only for offenses of which they have been convicted, but also, in the same proceedings, for offenses of which they have not been convicted.  When convicted of at least one charge, a judge may consider relevant conduct in sentencing the defendant, and even increase the sentence for charges that were never charged.  Scholars are split on the subject.  On the one hand, some argue the use of relevant conduct at sentencing is often legitimate.  Others object to the practice because “the addition of the relevant conduct result[s] in the identical punishment range which the defendant would have encountered had [they] been convicted on all counts.”

The Federal Supervised Release System: Kicking an Offender Down When He Is Trying to Get Back Up

In 1984, the Sentencing Reform Act abolished the Federal Parole System and replaced it with the Federal Supervised Release System. Though the Federal Supervised Release System was supposed to serve the same rehabilitative function for offenders as the parole system, supervised release has led to many negative consequences for offenders. Instead of serving as a system promoting offender rehabilitation as Congress intended, the supervised release system has actually served as more of a leash, pulling offenders right back into prison.

           

Under the previous parole system, a defendant would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment and after serving the minimum sentence for his prison term, a parole board would determine whether the defendant was ready for release. When the inmate was released from jail on parole, a parole officer would then monitor him or her in the community. The effect of the parole system was that the individual was serving a portion of his or her jail time out in the community under supervision. It seemed reasonable that if one were let out of jail early, that there would be some type of supervision of the individual while out in the community completing his sentence.

          

Snitches: The Government's Overreliance on Informants in the War on Drugs

In recent decades the United States has entered into multiple unconventional wars where it seems that victory will not be obtained until the enemy is eradicated.  One such war is the war on drugs.  It is unclear what a “win” in the war on drugs would look like, and the ambiguity leads to an ongoing fight, but the fight has become a dog eat dog battle of survival of the fittest.

The war on drugs began in the 1980’s as a response to the public opinion that Democrats were soft on crime.  To avoid this public perception before the 1986 election, Democrats came out strongly against drugs.  They introduced the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988.  Because both parties were anxious to appear strong on this issue, the legislation was passed quickly and without much scrutiny.