With respect to the treatment of criminal history presented in Part A, we believe the purpose of the sentencing guidelines and the juvenile justice system, inconsistent juvenile records and transfer laws, and the substantial racial disparities in youth sentencing dictate that the Commission adopt Option 3 and remove all consideration of youthful offenses from criminal history scoring. [...] And in the words of then-President Ronald Reagan upon the signing of the Sentencing Guidelines Act of 1986, the “core purpose of the Sentencing Reform Act was to establish fairness and certainty in sentencing.”6 Using such a framework in a uniform manner is intended to “secure nationwide consistency.”7 THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: The Commission’s proposed amendments regarding the sentencing of youthf. [...] In evaluating these options, the Commission must consider: (1) the purpose of the Guidelines, (2) the unique history, purpose, and practice of the juvenile justice system, (3) racial disparities in the adjudication and sentencing of youth, (4) the impact of juvenile records laws, and (5) disparities in laws governing how and when youth are transferred for prosecution and sentencing in adult court. [...] The inclusion of juvenile adjudications in any form violates the original mandate and purpose of the Commission in establishing the Guidelines as well as that of the juvenile justice system, while perpetuating arbitrary and inconsistent outcomes that only serve to exacerbate existing racial disparities in sentencing. [...] Option 1 takes the important step of eliminating from the computation of criminal history under §4A1.2 the two points currently allocated automatically for juvenile sentences based on a certain period of “confinement.” Eliminating this provision is necessary, not only because of the issue recognized by the Commission of how to define “confinement” in the context of the juvenile system, but also be.
Authors
- Pages
- 22
- Published in
- United States of America
