Crack 2.0

The 1984 Sentencing Reform Act charged the U.S. Sentencing Commission with developing sentencing guidelines that advanced the purposes of sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). After the Supreme Court cases Booker, Kimbrough, Gall, and Spears, it is now well established—at least with federal drug trafficking offenses—that the Commission did not fulfill that directive. The magnitude of that failure (coupled with some of Congress’s own misguided decisions) has previously been highlighted by the evolution of federal crack sentencing policies, the Fair Sentencing Act, the related line of Supreme Court cases, and more recently the First Step Act. Congress’s compromise correction of over twenty years (essentially a generation) of a failed war on crack did nothing to further correct similar defects with federal drug sentencing policies for other controlled substances—particularly with respect to methamphetamine. Given the resurgence of methamphetamine trafficking, use, and prosecutions, this paper will analyze post-1988 federal methamphetamine sentencing policy to illustrate how the drug-type, quantity, and purity model for punishing drug trafficking offenses still produces unwarranted sentencing disparities between similar controlled substances or different forms of the same controlled substances—and in the end plainly fails to effectively deter the targeted criminal conduct or advance the purposes of federal sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Educational Consequences of Paternal Incarceration: Evidence from a Danish Policy Reform

Objectives This study estimates the causal effect of paternal incarceration on children’s educational outcomes measured at the end of compulsory schooling (9th grade) in Denmark. Methods I use Danish administrative data and rely on a sentencing reform in 2000, which expanded the use of non-custodial alternatives to incarceration for traffic offenders, for plausibly exogenous variation in the risk of experiencing paternal incarceration. Results The results show that paternal incarceration does not affect academic achievement (grade point average), but that it does reduce the number of grades obtained, and–most importantly–roughly doubles the risk of not even completing compulsory school and getting a 9th grade certificate. These findings are driven mainly by boys for whom paternal incarceration appear to be particularly consequential. Conclusions The findings presented in this study highlight the presence of unintended and collateral consequences of penal policies–even in the context of a relatively mild penal regime. Effects are, however, estimated for a subgroup of Danish children experiencing paternal incarceration, and how results translate to other subgroups and beyond the Danish context is open for speculation.

Consensus, Compassion, and Compromise? The First Step Act and Aging Out of Crime

The passage of the First Step (Act) represents an ambitious, bipartisan compromise to commence much-needed, genuine federal sentencing reform. However, as its name suggests, it is, in practice, simply one meager stride in what requires a marathon to affect true change. Its improvements fail to achieve the status of “groundbreaking.” This is particularly evident when considering its approach to reduction in sentence of elderly offenders. Since 2013, compassionate release has stood as the exclusive process available for worthy elderly offenders to request early release from prison. While the Act certainly expands access to compassionate release, it fails to do so generously. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) continues to craft and preserve implementation guidelines that render compassionate release policies ineffective. The Act also revives the Second Chance Act of 2007 by providing a vehicle for early release of certain classes of elderly offenders. While this reauthorization appears appealing, it, too, fails to realize its full potential. This is so because BOP has again apprehended the system by refusing to include good time credits in release eligibility calculations. While the Act is a product of deliberate compromise between lawmakers, consensus concerning its practical application is non-existent.