I ~ONGRESS|ONAL « % RECH . . Universifll of Missouri - Columbia . LIBRARYOF Hlllll HIHH lllllfll llllllllllllllllllfllllllilll CONGRESS . O10-103860822 V « . ?EE1HB: SBNTENCINGSREFORH ISSUE BRIEF NUHBER IB77108 Auraok: ncclure, Barbara P. Education? and Public Welfare Division THE LIBRARY or comsasss icoNcR3ssIonAL RESEARCH SERVICE mason IS SIIES‘ “ s YSTEH DATE ORIGINATED 1g_4_1_1411 DATE UPDATED gggggggg FOR A~DDI'].‘AI0NAL INFORMATION cam. 287-5700 0910 CRS- 1 IB77108 UPDATE-O9/O8/80 ;§§un pmrrgxrlog host States and the Federal Government have sentencing systems known as indeterminate sentencing under whih the judge and the parole board exercise broad discretion in determining the length of an offender's confinement in prison. Once viewed as a major reform designed to individualize the treatment of offenders and facilitate rehabilitation, in the past few years indeterminate sentencing has come under serious attack because of what is, seen as abuse of this discretion. Critics; point to vast disparities in sentences and the uncertainty of punishmenty and they question the ability of prisons to rehabilitate and parole-boards to predict the future behavior of paroled offenders. A significant movement is underway to replace indeterminate sentencing with "determinate" or "fixed" sentencing, i.e., a system in which prison sentences are predictable and relatively inflexible. opponents of determinate sentencing, however, fear that it would be too severe and that it would add toaprison overcrowding. The process by which criminal offenders are sentenced to and released from prison in this country has recently been called into question. Most states and the Federal Government have sentencing systems known as "indeterminate" or "indefinite" sentencing. —Llthough thereeare variations.from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, these ‘typically operate as follows: the legislature atermines the outer range of sentences for a particular crime (e.g., from S to 20 years); the judge may select any sentence within that range; and the parole board may at its discretion release an offender any time after some specified percentage of his sentence (often_one-third) has been served, or it may require that the entire sentence he served. Thus, judges exercise considerable discretion in setting the outer limits of confinement, and parole boards determine the actual length of an offender's imprisonment by deciding when he has been “rehabilitated” and should be released into society. Indeterminate sentencing and parole emerged in this century as major reforms designed to individualize the treatment of offenders and to substitute rehabilitation for retribution. Underlying these reforms were the beliefs that (1) criminal sanctions should take into account the particular circumstances of individual offenders and offenses, and (2) criminals are in need of rehabilitation rather than punishment. According to this theory, the length of sentences and the time_ of release should be dependent on the offender's need for and responsiveness to correctional treatment programs. Until recently, virtually all criminal justice reformers hailed indeterminate sentencing as an important step ytoward humanizing the criminal justice process. However, in the past few years it has come uner attack from all ~guarters because of what are seen as abuses:of the vast discretion allowed to judges and parole boards. The following paragraphs outline the most commonly expressed reasons for this mounting opposition. (1) Those who emphasize law and order’ charge that too many serious v olators serve little or no time in prison, and that parole boards release those who do go to prison too soon. The result is that punishment is so uncertain that there is little if any deterrent effect. They also argue that the early release of habitual and dangerous criminals after significantly cns- 2 1377103 UPDATE-O3/O8/80 less time than the maximum sentence prescribed undermines both protection of society and public confidence in the sentencing process‘ and the crimina‘ justice system as a whole. ' (2) Prisoners’ groups and those concerned with civil, liberties icontend that the range of penalties available under most indeterminate sentencing statutes results in unfair disparity in lengths of sentences which cannot be explained by examining the circumstances of individual cases. Perhaps the best known study of sentencing disparity was one in which 50 Federal judges were given identical actual case files and asked to recommend sentence. In one extortion case, recommendations ranged from 20 years in prison plus a $65,000 fine to only 3 years in prison with no fine. The range in a bank robbery case was from 5 to 18 years‘ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. nany commentators also suggest that the race, sex, and wealth of defendants, as well as the political and ideological views:of the judge, often enter into sentencing decisions. In the opinion oft Federal District Judge Marvin Frankel, "The almost wholly unchecked and sweeping powers we give to judges in the fashioning of sentences are terrifying and intolerable for a society that professes devotion to the rule of law" (§;;m;ng;_§gn§ggces: Law Eithout Q.I§Q§l-‘.1. P- 5)- (3) many experts have come to believe that prisons do not rehabilitate and, therefore, rehabilitation must be discarded as a justification for incarceration. A recent survey of more than 200 studies of rehabilitation came to the conclusion that there is very little reason to believe that recidivism can be reduced by any of the currently employed rehabilitation techniques (Lipton, Hartinson, and wilks, The Effgctiyggg§§_ g§_ gggggggignal Tngatngnt). These critics argue that although rehabilitation programs shouldw be available for those prisoners who want them, there is no longer many justification for sentencing offenders for indefinite periods for purposes of coercing rehabilitation. Instead, offendexs should be imprisoned based~ on the seriousness of the offense committed for purposes of punishment, deterrence, and removal of a danger to society. (4) Critics also have serious doubts about the ability of parole boards to predict how a prisoner will behave if released on parole. As a result, it is contended that some prisoners who could be safely released are. incarcerated for unnecessarily long periods, while many dangerous offenders are released too soon. one study of parole decisions in New York State found that in a typical 5-year period, half of the prisoners on parole commit a crime or violate parole rules (Citizens' Inquiry on Parole and Criminal Justice, Inc., E1r..i.§.2u-E.i.’21_n921.’--52;;§;-_.11e22£1=. on flew Y0;1.<....aI.=2;e) - T (5) many corrections officials say that bitterness over unequal sentences and the tensions arising from the uncertainties of parole are prime causes of tension and violence in prisons. Numerous proposals have been made recently to remove as much discretion as possible from the sentencing and paroling processes, or aat uleast? to force those who exercise it to do so according to some formal,» written fistandards. There is a significant movement underway to replace indeterminate**sentencing with "determinate" or "fixed" sentencing. The exact definition of these terms varies, but in general they refer to a sentencing ,code3 in“ which punishments are based more on the crime than on the offender. andfiflinf which wprison terms are predictable and relatively inflexible. Among” ER? Eoptions being discussed are the following: (1) Flat—tige sentgnging —— Under this system a single sentence” would be CRS- 3 IB77108 UPDATE‘0Q/O8/80 prescribed by the legislative branch for eah class of felonies. Sentences would be served in full with no parole release, although in some cases irisoners could shorten their terms of imprisonment through good behavior. some versions of flat-time sentencing would.permit slight alteration of the sentence if there were aggravating or mitigating circumstances. (2) g;g§ggpt;yg_§ggtggg;ng -—-Under this:system, not only would a minimum and maximum sentence he set, but a "typical? or "presumptive" sentence would also be adopted for each crime or’ category of crimes. The presumptive sentence would be imposed in all cases unless the court found specified aggravating or mitigating circumstances that would raise or lower the penalty within the outer limits. any departure from the presumptive sentence would have to be justified in writing. (3) §endet2rz.mini;22-§enfieusin9 -- this proposal would fix a mininum sentence which must be served in its entirety for conviction of certain crimes without regard to the circumstances of the offense or offender. The effect of such a scheme would be to eliminate all discretion to go below them minimum sentence, although higher sentences could be imposed. (a) §ggtggg;gg_gg;g§;;gg§ -— Under this proposal, a sentencing commission would fashion guidelines for judges to follow in imposing sentence for each crime and for different types of offeners. Judges would retain the discretion to sentence above or below the range set forth in the guidelines but would be required to state the reasons for doing so in writing. Sentencing guidelines projects financed by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration are currently underway in seweral cities. Closely allied with these proposals are two others which could be adopted in combination with any of.the sentencing models or by themselves: (1) zlininetien.9r-§2rtailn2nt-2f_£ar2le.-- some suggest restricting to a’ short period the time over which the parole=board has, discretion to grant release. Others suggest that parole boards should be required to fix the date of release according to strict guidelines shortly after an offender is imprisoned- And there are those who believe the parole board function shoul be restricted to post~release supervision mnly. ‘ (2) gpgg;l§tg_ g§gigg_ 9;; §ggt§ggg§ - Most states and the Federal Government do not permit appeals of sentences. Many suggest that defendants should be allowed to appeal sentences they feel are excessive and that prosecutors should he allowed to yappeal sentences they feel are unduly lenient. .Although proponents of determinate sentencing disagree as to which is the best model, they all claim that determinate sentencing will provide many 1 benefits: increase the certainty of punishment, reducer disparity among sentences, reduce tension among inmates and prison officials, and let the public know exactly what is being done with an offender. Hone claims that «sentence reform will be a panacea for the crime problem, but justify it on the ground that it will be more fair and more just than the present‘system. abwever, support for fixed sentencing is not universal. one major chjectionfighatg has been expressed is that by ignoring differences in ; Jividual ggfenders it will eliminate flexibility to the point that it will create major injustices of its own. Others argue that it is pointless to try to limit judicial and parole board discretion so long as other discretionary forces in the criminal justice system, ‘such as plea bargaining by cRs- L: IB77108 UPDATE-0 9/08/80 prosecutors, remain unchecked. Correctional administrators fear that determinate sentencing will result in more people going to prison for long; periods of time and thus will add to prison overcrowding. A large number Ll corrections officials also believe that rehabilitation has not been given a fair chance and that rehabilitation programs can work to change inmate behavior for the better. Indeterminate sentencing and parole are viewed by them as necessary to entice inmates into taking advantage of rehabilitation programs and to motivate nonviolence in prison. Many fearw that rehabilitation will be discarded as even a goal. other critics point out that it is virtually impossible to catalogue every possible variation of a crime and assign it a separate penalty and that there is a complete lack of consensus as to what constitutes fair and just sentences. In the 95th Congress, several ‘bills designed to reform the Federal sentencing system were introduced. Included were those that proposed to establish mandatory minimum penalties for certain violent crimes, those that proposed to create a Federal system of presumptive sentencing, and those that proposed to establish a Federal sentencing commission. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures held hearings on several of these measures in June 1977. Particular attention was focused on S. 1437, the proposed Federal criminal code reform legislation, sponsored by Senators McClellan and Kennedy. This bill would have revised the Federal sentencing system by creating a Federal Sentencing Commission to write sentencing guidelines to be followed by Federal judges. At the hearings, then Attorney General Griffin Bell expressed the Administration's strong endorsement of the entire criminal code revision bill and of the sentencing provisions in particular. None of the witnessesw defended indeterminate sentencing in its present form, but there was debatt, over the desirability of parole. Senator Kennedy, Attorney General Bell, and 0.5- Bureau of Prisons Director Norman Carlson all called for its total abolition. on the other hand, Curtis C. Crawford, acting chairman of the U.S. Parole Commission, alang with other witnesses, objected that with nearly #00 Federal judges interpreting sentencing guidelines, parole would still be necessary to eliminate unwarranted disparities.‘ S. 1u37 was favorably reported, as amended, by the full Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov. 15, 1977 (s.Rept. 95-605).. Following 8 days of debate and numerous floor amendments, the bill was passed by the Senate on Jan. 30,‘ 1978. As passed, 5. 1fl37 would have classified all Federal crimes into one of nine categories of felonies, misdemeanors, and an infraction, and prescribed the maximum allowable penalty for each category (e.g., Class A felony, life; Class B felony, 20 years; etc.). In general, these maximums would have been lower than those allowable under current law, but the maximum allowable fines would have been greatly increased. The bill would have pcreated a sentencing commission with the authority to formulate guidelines for sentencing by Federal judges. The maximum terms under the guidelines could not have exceeded the minimum by more than 25%. Judges would have been allowed to sentence outside the guidelines upon a finding of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Appellate review" would have been possible for sentences outside the guidelines by both the defense and the prosecution. Parole eligibility would have been eliminated unless specifically requested by the sentencing judge. Time off for good behavior‘ in prison_ would have. been reduced to 3 days per month. Hearings on the companion measure to S. 1u37, H.R. 6869 introduced by Representative Rodino, were concluded by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice on Apr. 24, 1978. Following subcommittee mark-up, a clean CRS- 5 IB77108 UPDATE—09/08/80 bill (H.R. 13959) was introduced on Aug. 1a, 1978. Subtitle III of this bill ldealt with sentencing. It directed the U.S. Judicial Conference to compile znd analyze data on sentences imposed by Federal courts, and to develop on a continuing basis aggisggy sentencing guidelines for use by Federal judges. It directed that at the time of sentencing the court should state on the record the specific reasons for imposing a particular sentence, and provided for appellate review at the behest of the defendant. Parole release would have been maintained in its present form. The bill also would have established a new uniform fine structure with fine levels generally higher than under current law. 6 ~ In the 96th Congress, as in the 95th, several sentening reform proposals have been introduced. Once again, criminal code reform legislation has been introduced by Senator Kennedy (5. 1722). The sentencing provisions of this bill are essentially similar, though not identical, to those of S. 1u37 of last Congress. The most significant difference is that S. 1722, would completely eliminate early release on parole. A series of hearings on this legislation was held by the full Senate Judiciary Committee. In his testimony to the Committee, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti expressed the Administration's approval of the bill, and in particular noted with favor the "bill's complete abolition of our archaic parole system -- an abolition that was strongly urged by former Attorney General Bell on behalf of President Carter." on Jan. 17, 1980, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported 5. 1722 ($.Rept. 96-553). On the House side, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice met throughout the first session of the 96th Congress in a series of over 100 markup sessions to develop its revision of the Federal criminal code. A reliminary bill was introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Drinan on Jan. 7, 1980 (H.R. 6233) and vthe subcommittee's final marked up version was introduced on Mar. 25 (H.R. 6915). The full House Judiciary Committee ordered the measure favorably reported on July 2, .1980. The House bill differs from the Senate bill in that (1) authorized maximum sentences of imprisonment are generally shorter; (2) therJudicial Conference of the United States, rather than a sentencing’ commission, is directed, to establish sentencing guidelines; (3) appellate review of sentences is available only to defendants; and (4) early release on parole is maintained for present but would phase out over 5 years- of course, the vast majority of offenders in this country would not be affected by passage of Federal criminal code reform legislation, since Federal offenders constitute only a small proportion of the total number of criminal offenders in this country. But change in the Federal system could encourage the States, many of which are now considering sentencing reform, to undertake similar changes. 9 LEGISLATION H.B. 2205 (ncclory) Establishes a United States Commission on Sentencing in the judicial branch to be comprised of not less than five members appointed by the United lstates Judicial Conference. Provides that membership shall not be limited to‘ f iges but shall include practicing attorneys, criminologists, and prison and p role authorities. Directs the Commission to promulgate and distribute to all Federal courts sentencing ranges for specific offenses and guidelines to be considered by the sentencing court in determining the appropriate sentence.. Provides for congressional review of the sentencing ranges for CRS- 6 IB77108 UPDATE—0Q/08/80 specific offenses and the guidelines for sentencing. Provides that the Commission shall be abolished after 6 years. Provides that the court at tr‘ time of sentencing must disclose in open court a brief statement o tL reasons for the sentence imposed. Provides that an appeal by right may be filed (1) by the defendant if the sentence exceeds the maximum established by the guidelines and sentence ranges promulgated by the Sentencing Commission, or (2) by the Government if the sentence is less than the minimum established by the guidelines and sentence ranges. Alntroduced Feb. 15, 1979; referred to Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. fl93fl (Holtzman) Criminal Fines Reform Act of 1979. Sets: forth increased maximum fines that can be imposed for conviction of Federal offenses. For individuals, provides for maximum fines ranging from $2,500 for an offense. punishable by imprisonment up to 6 months, to $100,000 for an offense punishable by death or imprisonment for more than 10 years. For corporations, provides maximum fines ranging up to $100,000 for an offenseefor which an individual could be imprisoned for up to a year, and up to $500,000 for all felonies. Provides that in cases where an individual or corpoiation has profited from a crime, they may be alternatively sentenced to pay a fine of up to two times the gain derived. Introduced July 2a, 1979; referred to Committee on Judiciary. H.R. 5on9 (Holtzman) sentencing Reform Act of 1979. Directs the Judicial Conference of the United States to (1) analyze on a continuing basis data on sentences imposed by Federal courts; (2) develop advisory sentencing guidelines for Federal judges to use in imposing sentence; (3) make available at least annually to Federal courts and other interested persons: such guidelines developed ann sentencing data gathered; (0) evaluate ‘the impact of such guidelines on prosecutorial discretion, plea bargaining, and unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (5) report annually to Congress on its activities, including legislative recommendations. Specifies thiee factors, in addition to the advisory guidelines, to be considered by sentencing judges in imposing sentence: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the defendant*s relevant history; (2) the need for the sentence to provide punishment commensurate with the seriousness of the crime, to provide adequate deterrence, to protect the public, and to provide the defendant with appropriate education, training or’ medical care; and (3) the kinds of sentences available, including, effective alternatives to imprisonment.‘ Allows a defendant to appeal a sentence on the grounds that it is "clearly unreasonable." Introduced Aug. 1, 1979;:referred to Committee on Judiciary. H.R. 6915 (Drinan et al.) Criminal Code Revision Act of 1980. classifies all Federal crimes into nine categories, and prescribes the maximum sentence of imprisonment for -each: Class A felony, life; Class B felony, 160 months; Class C felony, 80 months; Class D felony, no months; Class B felony, 18 months; Class A misdemeanor, 12 months; Class B misdemeanor, 6 months; Class C misdemeanor, , 30 days; infraction, none. Increases the maximum fines over those allowable under current law: (1) for a felony, $250,000 if the defendant is an individual and $1;O00,000 if the defendant is an organization; (2) whether the defendant is an individual or an organization, $25,000 for a Class A‘ misdemeanor, $15,000 for. a Class B misdemeanor, $5,000 for a»‘€1ass C misdemeanor, and $1,000 for an infraction. Authoizes sentences of\ ' conditional discharge or probation unless the offense involved is a Class A felony. Provides that a convicted defendant may be sentenced to ‘make restitution to the victim of the offense. Sets forth eight purposes of ens- 7 11377103 nnnu-13-o9/o3/so sentencing: to assure that severity of punishment is proportionate to the offense; to assure that like offenders receive like sentences; to promote respect for the law; deterrence; protection of the public; to provide the defendant with correctional treatment; to provide restitution to victims; and to reconcile the victim, community and offender. Directs the Juicial Conference of the United States to establish guidelines to govern the imposition of sentences for Federal offenses. Establishes a seven-member Committee on Sentencing within the Judicial Conference to analyze on a continuing basis data on sentences imposed by Federal courts; to recommend sentencing guidelines to the Judicial Conference; and to recommend standards for Federal judges to use in cases involving plea bargaining or youthful offenders. Directs that a court shall. impose a sentence within the sentencing guidelines unless there is a finding of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Provides that at the time of sentencing the reasons for imposition of the particular sentence shall be stated on the record, including an explanation for any variance from the guidelines. Allows defendants to obtain appellate review of sentences. Provides that prisoners sentenced to more than 1 year shall be eligible for early release on parole after serving one-half of their sentence, or after serving 10 years of a life sentence or a sentence of more than 20 years. Eliminates credit toward (service of sentence for good behavior in prison. Introduced Mar. 25, 1980; referred to Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered favorably reported July 2, 1980. " A S. 1218 (Bentsen) _ Fair and Certain Punishment Act. sets forth sentencing procedures and ' guidelines to be utilized whenever a person.is found guilty of or pleads guilty to any of specified types of Federal felonies, including homicide, heft, assault, rape, kidnapping and drug violations. Directs the judge ton conduct a separate sentencing hearing to determine whether certain enumerated aggravating or mitigating circumstances exist. Designates the "presumptive" sentence to be imposed for each offense encompassed by the Act. Authorizes the judge to reduce or increase the sentence up to 40% due to the presence and weight of aggravating and mitigating factors. Disalloms suspended or probationary sentences except where "extraordinary" mitigating circumstances exist. Sets forth procedures for appeal of sentences (1) by the defendant if in excess of the presumptive sentence, at (2) by the Government if less than the presumptive sentence. Introduced May 23, 1979; referred to Committee on the Judiciary. S. 1722 (Kennedy) ‘ Criminal Code Reform Act of 1979. As reported, classifies all Federal crimes into nine categories, and prescribes the maximum sentence of imprisonment for each: Class A felony, life; Class B felony, 20 years; Class C felony, 10 years; Class D felony, 5 years; Class E felony, 2 years; Class A misdemeanor, 1 year; Class B misdemeanor, 6 months; Class C misdemeanor, 30 days; infraction, 5 days. Increases the maximum fines over those allowable under current law: for an individual, (1) not more than $250,000 for a felony or for a misdemeanor resulting in loss of life, (2) not more than " $25,000 for any other misdemeanor, and (3), not more than $1,000 for any infraction; for an organization, (1) not more than $1,000,000 for a felony or for a misdemeanor resulting in loss of life, (2) not more than $100,000 for C any other misdemeanor, and (3) not more than $10,000 for an infraction. 7 thorizes sentence of probation for all offenses except Class A felonies, or in certain cspecified circumstances. Authorizes a judge to impose, in appropriate cases and in addition to any other sentence, an order of criminal forfeiture, an order to give notice of conviction to victims, or an order to make restitution to victims. Sets forth four purposes of sentencing: CRS- 8 . IB77108 UPDATE-09/03/80 deterrence, protection of the public, assurance of just punishment, and rehabilitation. Creates a 0.5. Sentencing Commission within the judicie branch to consist of seven voting members and the Attorney General as u ‘non-voting member. Directs the Commission to establish guidelines to govern the imposition of sentences for Federal offenses. Provides that if the sentence specified by the guidelines includes a term of imprisonment, the maximum of the range established for such term shall not exceed the minimum of that range by more than 25%. Directs that a court shall impose a sentence within the guidelines unless there is a finding of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Provides that at the time of sentencing the reasons for imposition of the particular sentence must be stated in open court, including an explanation for any variance from the guidelines. Allows defendants to obtain appellate review of sentences higher than the maximum established in. the guidelines, and allows the Government to obtain appellate review of sentences lower than the minimum established in the guidelines. Eliminates early release on parole. Provides that a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year, other than a life sentence, may earn credit toward service of sentence for good behavitr in prison, at a rate of up to 36 days per year, beginning after the first year served. Provides that any such credit earned may not later be withdrawn, and any credit not earned may not later be granted. Authorizes the court, in imposing a sentence of imprisonment of more than 1 year, to include as part of the sentence a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment. Provides that the authorized terms of supervised release are (1) for a Class A or*B felony, not more than 3 years; (2) for a Class C or D felony, not more than 2 years: and (3) for a Class E felony, or two or more misdemeanors, not more than 1 year. Introduced Sept. 7, 1979; referred to Committee on Judiciary. Hearings held by _full Judiciary Committee or/ Sept. 11, 13, 18, 20, and 2a, and Oct. 5, 1979.’ Favorably reported on Jan. 3. 1973 (Biden et al.) p Sentencing Reform Act of 1979. Authorizes sentences of imprisonment, probation, fine or restitution for defendants convicted of Federal offenses. Directs the court, in determining the sentence to be imposed, to consider: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense, (2) the defendant's role in the offense and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances not reflected in guidelines formulated by the Federal Sentencing Commission, (3) the types of sentences, (Q) the sentence recommended by the Sentencing Commission's guidelines, (5) any pertinent policy statements by the Sentencing Commission, and (6) the need for uniformity of sentences throughout the United States. Requires the court to state in open court the reasons for imposition of the particular sentence and the specific reason. for imposition of a sentence different from that set forth in the guidelines. Permits a defendant to appeal a final sentence in any case except where a sentence recommended in the guidelines is included in a plea agreement. Establishes procedures for imposition and revocation of a sentence of probation. Provides that a defendant may not be sentenced to probation if convicted of an offense punishable by life in prison. Establishes as an independent body in the judicial branch a seven-member Federal Sentencing Commission with the Chairman of the Parole Commission and the Attorney General as ex officio members. Directs the President to appoint one member from a list of ten Federal judges provided by the Judicial4:onference of the United States, one member who is a Federal public defender, and the remaining members from a variety of criminal justice backgrounds. Directs the Commission to issue guidelines and general policy statements for use by sentencing courts. it stipulates that the guidelines may provide for an increase or decrease of up to 5% of a term of imprisonment. Provides that they shall include a term of CRS- 9 IB77108 UPDATE—09/08/80 imprisonment where (1) serious bodily injury resulted from the offense, or (2) the offense is a felony and the defendant had previously been convicted ;f a felony. Directs the Commission to report to Congress the guidelines issued not later than nay 1 of each year. Provides that the guidelines shall take effect 90 days after the Commission reports them to Congress unless disapproved or modified by Congress. Directs the Commission to submit to Congress within 3 years of the issuance of guidelines a proposal for reducing all statutory maximum prison terms. Requires that good time allowances be made within 2 days after the end of each month, and provides that such allowance shall vest at the time it is received. Substitutes the penalty of life imprisonment without parole for Federal crimes which currently carry the death penalty. Provides that the Commissirn shall issue initial guidelines within 60 days of the effective date of the Act. Provides that the United States Parole Commission shall continue its function of setting release dates for 3 years following the effective date of the guidelines. Introduced Nov. 2, 1979; referred to Committee on Judiciary. §§A§l!§§ 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Criminal Justice. Legislation to revise and recodify Federal criminal laws. Hearings, 95th Congress, 1st and 2d session, on H.R. 6869. Sept. 15, 1977; Feb. 21-22, 28; mar. 1, 6-8, 13-1n, 20-21; Apr. u-6, 10-13, ‘17-20, and 24, 1978. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 3 v. (2883 p.) 0.5. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures. Reform of the Federal criminal laws (part XIII, sentencing and general codification); Hearings, 95th Congress, 1st session, on S. 31, S. #5, S. 181, S. 204, S. 260, S. 888, S. 979, and S. 1221. June 7,8,9,20, and 21, 1977. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1977: 8575-9895. B§EQBI§-é!2-QQ!§B§§§lQ!AL_DQ§Q§§!I§ 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Criminal Justice. Impact of S. 1u37 upon present Federal criminal laws, 95th Congress, 2d session. Washington, 0-5. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 2 v. (1862 p.) ht head of title: 95th Congress, 2d session. Committee print no. 17. Report of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice on recodification of federal criminal law. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 72 p. At head of title: 95th Congress, 2d session. Committee print no. 29. 0.5. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Criminal Code Reform Act of 1977; report to accompany S. 1437. Washington, 0.3. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 1u11 p. (95th.Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report no. 95-605) gggouopocz or Evzgrs CBS-10 IB77108 UPDATE-09/O8/80 ---- Criminal Code Reform Act of 1979: report to accompany S. 1722. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 1507 p. (96th Congress, 2d session. Senate» Report no. 96-553) 07/02/80 -- H.R. 6915 ordered favorably reported by House Judiciary Committee. 5 A01/17/80 - S. 1722 favorably reported by Senate Judiciary Committee. 01/30/78 -- S. 1u37, as amended, passed by the Senate. A22l1'lQ1lAL-1l§1“.ERE!CE 50U§§§§ American Friends Service Committee- Struggle for justice. New York, Hill and Wang, 1971. 179 p. (HV9n71.S85) Citizens‘ Inquiry on Parole and Criminal.Justice, Inc. Prison without walls: report on New York parole. New York, Praeger Publishers, 1975. 210 p. (HV9305.N7Cu8 1975) 1 Contact, inc. Let the punishnent fit the‘crine. Lincoln, Reb., 1978. 155 p. (LRS78-5626) Deterninate sentencing: reform or regression? Proceedings of the Special Conference on Deterninate Sentencing, June 2-3, 1977, University of California, Berkeley. [Washington] 0.5. National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 1978. 1&8 p. (LRS78-5703) Dershowitz, Alan H. Crininal sentencing in the United ,States: an historical and conceptual overview. The Annals, v. 423, January 1976: 117-132. (LRS76-1282) Fogel, David. "...we are the living proof...”; the justice ‘ model for corrections. Cincinnati, W.H. Anderson, 1975. 328 p. (HV9471.F56) Frankel, Harvin E. Crininal sentences: law without order. New York, Hill and Wang, 1973. 120 p. (KF9685.F7) Lipton, Douglas, Robert uartinson, and Judith Wilks. The effectiveness of correctional treatment: a survey of treatment evaluation studies. New York, Praeger Publishers, 1975. 735 p. (HV9275.L56) Mitford, Jessica. Kind and usual punishment. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1973. 3H0 p. (HV9471.u58 1973) CBS-11 IB77108 UPDATE-O9/O8/80 fiorris, Norval. The future of imprisonment. Chicago, University press, 1978. 1flfl p. (HV8705.H67) O'Donnell, Pierce, Hichael J. Churgin, and Dennis E. Curtis. Toward a just and effective sentencing system: agenda for legislative reform. New York, Praeger Publishers, 1977. 137 p. (KF9685.03) Sutton, L. Paul. Federal criminal sentencing: perspectives of analysis and a design for research. Washington, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 1978. 33 p. (LRS78-17767) ---- Federal sentencing patterns: a study of geographical variations. Washington, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, ---- Predicting sentences in Federal courts: the feasibility of a national sentencing policy. Washington, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 1978. 3a p. (LRS78-21223) -—--- Variations in Federal criminal sentences: a statistical, assessment at the national level. Washington, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 1978. 56 p. (LBS78-21793) * Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Criminal Sentencing. Report: fair and certain punishment- New York, Hcsraw-Hill, 1976. 1H2 p. (KF9685.T9) 9.3. General Accounting Office. Reducing Federal judicial sentencing and prosecuting disparities: a systemwide approach needed; report to the Congess by the Comptroller General of the United States. [Washington] 1979. 63 p. (LRS79-2179) van den Haag, Ernest. Punishing criminals: concerning a very old and painful question. New York, Basic Books, 1975. 283 p. (KF8675.V35) von Hirsch, Andrew. Doing justice - the choice of punishments: report of the Committee for the Study of Incarceration. New York, Hill and Wang, 1976. 179 p. (HY8708.Y65) iilkins, Leslie T., and others. Sentencing guidelines: structuring judicial discretion; final report of the feasibility study. [Washington] U.S. Department of Justice, Law.Enforcement Assistance:Administration, 1976. 175 p. (LRS76-219n3) Wilson, James Q. Thinking about crime. New York, Basic Books, 1975. 231 p. (HV6789.W53)