Bill Overview
Title: To amend title 28, United States Code, to include a Federal Public or Community Defender as a nonvoting member of the United States Sentencing Commission, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill adds one nonvoting member to the U.S. Sentencing Commission and requires the new member to be a public defender.
Sponsors: Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in the federal criminal justice system
Estimated Size: 350000
- The U.S. Sentencing Commission creates sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts. Therefore, any changes in its composition could affect federal sentencing guidelines.
- Defendants who are tried and sentenced in the federal court system are directly affected by these policies and practices.
- There are approximately 371,000 individuals currently in the federal criminal justice system, based on data of federal prison population, federal probation, and supervised release statistics.
- Public defenders often represent less privileged individuals who cannot afford private counsel, making this target population more likely to be impacted by a voice in the commission dedicated to representing their interests.
Reasoning
- The policy specifically targets individuals within the federal criminal justice system, affecting those who will be tried and sentenced and potentially altering their outcomes through a more balanced representation in sentencing guidelines.
- Given the demographic, most individuals impacted would be under correctional supervision or have pending cases in federal court.
- Public defenders represent less advantaged individuals, so the policy's impact might hinge on the socio-economic status of those involved in the federal system.
- Considering the constraints of the policy's budget, particularly its non-financial nature, the policy is essentially about representation rather than direct financial support.
- Given the wide dispersal of the affected population (potentially disbursed over 150,000 individuals), the impact on individual wellbeing might be subtle but essential over time, as changes in sentencing guidelines can lead to fairer trials and outcomes.
Simulated Interviews
Construction Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having a public defender on the commission sounds like it'll give people like me a fairer shot.
- I think over time, this can lead to better understanding and fairer sentences.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Unemployed (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Feels insignificant now, but having a public defender in that kind of role could mean fairer sentencing guidelines in the future.
- Even slight improvements in fairness can make a big difference for communities like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Public Defender (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seeing better representation in the Sentencing Commission can give our clients a stronger voice.
- This initiative aligns with my advocacy for reform and fairness in the system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Federal Prison Inmate (Houston, TX)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 2
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If having a public defender on the commission can mean slightly shorter sentences, it's a step in the right direction.
- I've seen too many served without fair process—I hope this policy can change that over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 2 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Social Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Incorporating public defender perspectives could bring tangible change within a complex system.
- Balancing the commission might eventually address systemic biases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Political Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy adjustment is a positive symbolic gesture towards greater fairness.
- Actual impact may be gradual, but it's crucial for systemic credibility.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
University Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having representation for lower-income individuals directly in decision-making places their interests upfront.
- The long-term bias correction in sentencing could change societal expectations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Probation Officer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced judicial empathy via a public defender's insights is promising.
- May assist in tackling unfair sentencing precedents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Attorney (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Bringing varied perspectives to judicial bodies can only enhance their effectiveness.
- The long-term benefits may not be immediately visible but are crucial.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Former Inmate (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's hopeful to see potential change from representation.
- Fair sentencing could have changed my life trajectory.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000 (Low: $30000, High: $70000)
Year 2: $51000 (Low: $31000, High: $71000)
Year 3: $52000 (Low: $32000, High: $72000)
Year 5: $55000 (Low: $35000, High: $75000)
Year 10: $60000 (Low: $40000, High: $80000)
Year 100: $150000 (Low: $140000, High: $160000)
Key Considerations
- The inclusion of a public defender as a nonvoting member aims to provide additional perspective on federal sentencing policies, potentially influencing future guidelines to better represent the interests of less privileged defendants.
- The administrative nature of this bill suggests negligible financial implications, as no salaries or major new expenses are incurred.
- Ensuring the new member participates effectively would require marginal operational resources from the current budget of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.