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

Minnesota recently passed a public safety bill that brings sweeping changes to the state’s juvenile justice system. While minors sometimes run afoul of the law, the juvenile justice system seeks to account for the differences between children and adults. Therefore, while the penalties for adults convicted of crimes focus on punishment, those for juveniles are aimed at diversion and restorative practices.
If a county medical examiner’s work is called into question in one case, it can affect all those they were a part of. An independent review is underway of murder cases involving the testimony of the long-time medical examiner in Ramsey County, Minnesota. The review comes in response to a wrongful murder conviction that was recently vacated on the basis that the medical examiner gave flawed medical testimony.
You might ask how plea bargains work if you are considering settling your criminal case by skipping the trial phase. A plea bargain in Minneapolis, MN, happens when a criminal defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest instead of having the prosecution prove his or her guilt at trial. The prosecution agrees to reduce the charges, recommend less harsh penalties, or drop the charges altogether in exchange for a guilty plea.