Dear friend,

The U.S. Sentencing Commission is back! That means the next few months will be big ones for federal criminal justice reform.

It is the first time in more than three years that we have an active Commission. Why does this matter? The Commission is the federal agency that writes and amends the Sentencing Guidelines, which are used by every judge in the country to help arrive at a sentence.

Last week, FAMM wrote to the new Commission to suggest a few topics we think it should put on its priority list. You can find that letter here: https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/PriorityLetter_FAMM_2022.pdf

We want to highlight for you one very important topic that we raised with the Commission: compassionate release. We know that the Commission will be discussing how to update the guideline provision that judges use when considering compassionate release motions. The current policy statement about compassionate release is way out of date.

The pandemic taught us that no guideline can predict every event that might warrant a reduction in sentence for extraordinary and compelling reasons. Under the current policy statement, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has complete discretion to identify and file a motion based on unforeseen circumstances. In contrast, judges have none.

But BOP does not use the discretion that it has. During the height of the pandemic, the BOP brought only 1% of the more than 4,000 motions for compassionate release that courts granted. People died waiting for BOP to answer their compassionate release requests. Judges, however, have been judiciously granting compassionate release motions filed by people whose circumstances are truly extraordinary and compelling.

We highlighted some of these success stories in our recent federal compassionate release report, found here: https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/Federal-Compassionate-Release-as-2nd-Look.pdf

The pandemic has taught us that no guideline can capture or predict every event that might warrant a reduction in sentence for extraordinary and compelling reasons. This is why we believe that the Commission should afford judges the same discretion as BOP currently has.

In the coming weeks, the Commission will meet and come up with their own list of priorities. FAMM will have an opportunity to respond to those, and will likely invite your help. Your voice matters and illustrates the human impact of the Commission’s decisions.

Stay tuned!

Mary Price
General Counsel, FAMM