Bill Overview
Title: Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021
Description: This bill limits the consideration of acquitted conduct (e.g., conduct underlying criminal charges for which an individual was found not guilty) by a federal court at sentencing.
Sponsors: Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in federal criminal cases where sentencing considers acquitted conduct
Estimated Size: 90000
- The bill affects individuals involved in federal court cases where sentencing is determined.
- It specifically applies to those individuals who have been acquitted of certain charges, yet face sentencing for other charges.
- It aims to prevent consideration of behavior related to charges for which the person was found not guilty, meaning individuals cannot be penalized further based solely on actions associated with such acquitted charges.
- Those directly impacted are defendants in federal criminal cases where sentencing is involved after an acquittal.
- It indirectly impacts legal practitioners, including judges and attorneys, as it changes federal sentencing procedures.
Reasoning
- Given the budget constraints, the policy is designed to affect a significant number of individuals within the federal court system, primarily those who have been acquitted of some charges but still face sentencing for other charges.
- The policy's primary aim is to ensure fair sentencing by disallowing consideration of acquitted conduct, which could lead to a fairer criminal justice process and potential improvements in personal well-being for those affected.
- Considering the target population is relatively small in the context of the entire US, impact of the policy will mostly be observed among defendants in federal cases.
- The effects of this policy will most likely be profound on those directly involved, potentially altering their life outcomes regarding sentencing which in turn affects their long-term well-being.
- Less direct effects might be seen on legal professionals and broader communities seeing this legislative change as a mark of fairness in federal sentencing procedures.
Simulated Interviews
Accountant (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could really help me because it feels like the system would be more just.
- I'm hoping for a lighter sentence since I was acquitted on more serious things.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Healthcare Administrator (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The law needs this change; it's unfair to judge based on acquitted conduct.
- I hope this brings some peace of mind through the sentencing process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Mechanic (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Feels like a fair move in the right direction for the justice system.
- I think not being judged on acquitted charges will help me get back to life more quickly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sentencing should not be based on things the jury found irrelevant.
- I hope family members of the accused will see fairer justice outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Defense Attorney (Houston, TX)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This helps ensure my clients are judged fairly especially when acquitted charges are numerous.
- Judges will have clearer guidelines, making my job a bit less convoluted in such cases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Federal Judge (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Judges need clarity and fairness in sentencing guidelines.
- This policy might streamline a lot of my decisions at sentencing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Paralegal (Denver, CO)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seen how acquitted conduct can unfairly sway sentencing.
- Overall good for fairness in the justice system, although it might change some procedural tasks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Community Advocate (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a win for justice and fairness in sentencing.
- I hope this relieves some of the stress families face when loved ones are in court.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Legal Reformer (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- An essential change for a just legal system, preventing unfair punishment.
- Changes perceptions of the fairness of the federal court system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Federal Public Defender (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's been a dire need for this change; it helps us focus on real matters at hand during sentencing.
- It might allow me to better protect the rights of my clients moving forward.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 5: $9000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $11000000)
Year 10: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $500000 (Low: $0, High: $1000000)
Key Considerations
- Judicial training and adaptation to new sentencing rules might incur minimal costs.
- Potential small savings in litigation related to appeals against unfair sentencing based on acquitted conduct.
- No significant economic or tax revenue effects are anticipated due to the scope of the bill.