Supreme Court hears case on extending prisoners’ sentences for rehabilitation

The United States Supreme Court heard a case on Monday that will decide whether federal judges can sentence prisoners for a longer amount of time for rehabilitation. The Court’s decision will impact over 80,000 federal criminals who are sentenced every year and those who seek criminal defense. The case made it to the Supreme Court because lower federal court judges are split as to whether rehabilitation time can be considered in a convicted criminal’s sentence.

The facts of the criminal case that took the issue all the way to the Supreme Court revisit the history of prisoner sentencing in the United States. The defendant in the case is a woman who was arrested in California in 2008 for attempted smuggling of immigrants. Following the arrest the woman did not appear for her court hearing and was consequently arrested again. At the time of the second arrest police found methamphetamine in her house.

The woman was convicted on immigrant smuggling and drug counts and during her sentencing her attorney asked for leniency because she had been sexually abused as a child. Under current federal sentencing laws federal judges do not the ability to sentence convicted criminals to very long or very short prison terms. The federal judge who initially heard the case sentenced the woman to a maximum sentence of 51 months explaining the woman’s need for drug treatment and her need to make a recovery. The minimum sentence was three years for the offenses.

In 1984 Congress passed the Sentencing Reform Act, which said that “imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation.” As a result judges were forced to sentence convicted criminals based solely on the components of the crime committed and parole was no longer an option. Prior to the Sentencing Reform Act judges had the ability to craft sentences unique to prisoners and prisoners could go through rehabilitation and be released on parole.

The woman’s sentence was appealed by a public defender who argued the Sentencing Reform Act prohibited sentences for rehabilitation and the woman’s long sentence was in violation of the law. At the moment, the Supreme Court Justices are also split on the issue.

Source: The Los Angeles Times, “Justices hear case on boosting criminals’ sentences,” David G. Savage, 4/19/11

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.