U.S. Sentencing Commission Seeks Public Comments on Federal Sentencing Policy
The United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) is currently soliciting public comments on federal sentencing guidelines and sentencing policy priorities.
For those unfamiliar with the Commission, the USSC is an independent agency within the judicial branch of the federal government. It is responsible for developing sentencing guidelines and policy statements used by federal courts throughout the country. The Commission also regularly reviews existing guidelines, considers proposed amendments, and makes recommendations to Congress.
This public comment period presents an opportunity for individuals directly impacted by the federal criminal justice system, their families, advocates, attorneys, researchers, and concerned citizens to share their perspectives on federal sentencing practices and policy.
If you have thoughts on sentencing guidelines, supervised release, rehabilitation, reentry, collateral consequences, public safety, proportional punishment, or any other aspect of federal sentencing policy, consider submitting your comments to the Commission. Please do not share comments on Florida laws or SORNA, because the USSC has nothing to do with that. Please do not share comments on law enforcement action, stings, or what should or should not constitute a criminal offense. This has ONLY to do with sentencing and not with anything that comes before.
Comments may be submitted through the USSC Public Comment Submission Portal: https://comment.ussc.gov
or via mail:
United States Sentencing Commission
One Columbus Circle, N.E., Suite 2-500
Washington, D.C. 20002-8002
Attention: Public Affairs – Priorities Comment
Too often, policies are shaped without hearing from the people most affected by them. This is an opportunity to help inform the conversation and ensure that real-world experiences are part of the Commission’s consideration as it evaluates future sentencing priorities.
If you choose to submit comments, please consider sharing a copy with FAC so we can better understand the concerns and experiences of our community.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION
Re: Federal Sentencing Policy Priorities
Submitted to:
United States Sentencing Commission
One Columbus Circle, N.E., Suite 2 500
Washington, D.C. 20002 8002
Attention: Public Affairs – Priorities Comment
________________________________________
I respectfully submit the following comments regarding federal sentencing policy and the Commission’s future priorities. The United States continues to maintain the largest incarcerated population in the world, and federal sentencing policy plays a critical role in shaping both incarceration rates and long term public safety outcomes. Evidence from the Commission’s own research and from national criminal justice studies demonstrates that excessive sentences, limited judicial discretion, and broad collateral consequences do not produce proportional public safety benefits.
The following recommendations are grounded in empirical data and recent research.
________________________________________
1. Reevaluate Sentences for Non Violent and First Time Offenders
Federal sentencing data show that sentence lengths have steadily increased in many categories without corresponding public safety gains. For example, in Michigan, average minimum sentences increased from 3.8 years in 2020 to 4.7 years in 2023, nearly a full year longer, despite no evidence of improved outcomes. Prison Policy Initiative
Research across multiple states demonstrates that earned sentence credit expansions reduce recidivism, indicating that shorter, incentive based sentences can improve community safety. Prison Policy Initiative
For non violent and first time offenders, lengthy incarceration imposes substantial costs on families and taxpayers while producing diminishing returns. Alternatives such as community supervision, treatment, and restorative justice programs consistently outperform incarceration in reducing reoffending.
________________________________________
2. Strengthen Individualized Sentencing and Judicial Discretion
The Commission’s 2023 report on demographic differences confirms that sentencing disparities persist, with Black males receiving sentences 19.1% longer than similarly situated White males. United States Sentencing Commission
These disparities underscore the need for greater judicial discretion and individualized assessments rather than rigid guideline structures. Indeterminate sentencing frameworks allow judges to consider risk, history, and rehabilitation potential—factors that cannot be captured by formulaic enhancements.
________________________________________
3. Address the Distortions Created by Plea Bargaining
The Commission’s data show that the majority of federal cases are resolved through plea agreements, where the difference between a plea offer and a post trial sentence can be extreme. Although the Commission has not yet quantified the exact disparity in recent years, research consistently shows that large plea to trial gaps exert coercive pressure, discouraging defendants from exercising their constitutional right to trial.
Sentencing policy should ensure that punishment remains proportionate regardless of plea status.
________________________________________
4. Reduce Collateral Consequences and Promote Reintegration
Collateral consequences—employment barriers, housing restrictions, and civic exclusion—continue long after a sentence ends. Research shows that individuals released under resentencing or “second look” policies have extremely low recidivism rates, with one year new conviction rates ranging from 3% to 29%, mostly for misdemeanors. Prison Policy Initiative
Similarly, a study of 178 elderly individuals released from life sentences in Maryland found that none were rearrested for a crime more serious than a traffic offense in the four years following release. Prison Policy Initiative
These findings demonstrate that successful reintegration is the norm, not the exception, when barriers are reduced.
________________________________________
5. Modernize and Tailor Supervised Release Conditions
Supervised release should be evidence based and individualized. Overly broad conditions—particularly those unrelated to risk—can undermine employment, family stability, and lawful community participation.
The Commission’s recidivism series shows that risk varies dramatically across offender groups. For example, federal drug trafficking offenders, firearms offenders, and violent offenders all exhibit distinct recidivism patterns, underscoring the need for tailored supervision. United States Sentencing Commission
________________________________________
6. Reaffirm Rehabilitation as a Central Objective
The Commission’s 2022 report on incarceration length and recidivism found no consistent relationship between longer prison terms and reduced recidivism. United States Sentencing Commission
In fact, the Commission’s broader recidivism series demonstrates that participation in Bureau of Prisons vocational and drug treatment programs significantly reduces reoffending. United States Sentencing Commission
Rehabilitation—education, vocational training, mental health care, and structured reentry—should remain central to federal sentencing policy.
________________________________________
7. Address the Unique Injustices Faced by Individuals Convicted of Sexual Offenses
The Sentencing Project’s 2024 policy brief documents several critical findings:
• Recidivism rates for crimes of a sexual nature have declined by roughly 45% since the 1970s, well before public registration and notification laws. The Sentencing Project
• National victimization data show a 65% decrease in rape and sexual assault victimizations from 1993 to 2021. The Sentencing Project
• Individuals convicted of sexual offenses serve a greater percentage of their sentences than those convicted of other violent crimes, including murder. The Sentencing Project
These findings demonstrate that extreme sentences and lifelong restrictions are not evidence based and do not contribute to public safety. Sentencing policy should reflect actual risk rather than stigma, particularly for non violent, first time offenders who complete treatment and demonstrate low risk.
Thank you for your attention.
Respectfully,
I tweaked JJJJ’s comment with ChatGPT and sent this in. I wanted to make sure that I mentioned that the Commission itself has said that sentencing for CP offenses is too harsh:
Dear Chair Reeves and Members of the United States Sentencing Commission:
I respectfully submit these comments regarding federal sentencing policy for sexual offense cases. I understand that this public comment period concerns federal sentencing guidelines, supervised release, proportional punishment, rehabilitation, reentry, and public safety. I am not asking the Commission to address state registration laws, offense definitions, law enforcement practices, or other matters outside its authority.
I urge the Commission to make federal sexual offense sentencing policy a priority in the upcoming amendment cycle, with particular attention to proportionality, individualized assessment, supervised release, rehabilitation, and successful reentry.
The purposes of sentencing include punishment, deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation. Those goals are best served when sentencing policy is grounded in evidence and recognizes meaningful differences among offenders and offenses. Factors such as age, criminal history, offense conduct, treatment participation, time offense-free in the community, and demonstrated rehabilitation can all be relevant to assessing future risk and determining an appropriate sentence.
The Commission’s own research has found that recidivism is not uniform across offenders and that age is strongly associated with differing rates of recidivism. In its report, “The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders” (2017), the Commission found that older offenders recidivate at substantially lower rates than younger offenders. These findings underscore the importance of sentencing and supervision policies that recognize meaningful differences among individuals rather than relying on assumptions of uniform risk. Evidence-based sentencing is best served when courts have guidance that allows them to distinguish among varying levels of culpability, risk, and demonstrated rehabilitation.
I encourage the Commission to examine whether current guideline provisions and policy statements in sexual offense cases adequately distinguish among varying levels of culpability and risk. The Commission has previously undertaken extensive reviews of federal sexual-offense-related guideline provisions, including its reports to Congress on federal child pornography offenses (2012 and 2021), which examined whether existing guideline structures continue to reflect empirical evidence, technological developments, and meaningful distinctions among offenders. Continued review of these and related issues would be consistent with the Commission’s longstanding commitment to ensuring that the Guidelines remain evidence-based, proportionate, and responsive to real-world outcomes.
The Commission should also review supervised release practices in sexual offense cases. Conditions of supervision are most effective when they are individualized, clearly connected to legitimate sentencing goals, and supported by the facts of the particular case. Broad or automatic restrictions may, in some circumstances, create unnecessary barriers to housing, employment, education, family stability, and community reintegration without providing corresponding public-safety benefits.
In addition, the Commission should continue to prioritize rehabilitation and reentry. Research consistently demonstrates that stable housing, lawful employment, treatment participation, family support, and community integration contribute to reduced recidivism and improved public safety. Sentencing policy should encourage accountability while also supporting successful reintegration.
I also encourage the Commission to study the cumulative effects of imprisonment, supervised release, special conditions, and other consequences that affect reentry after a sentence has been imposed. Even where certain consequences fall outside the Commission’s direct authority, understanding their practical effects can help ensure that federal sentencing policy remains proportionate and consistent with the statutory requirement that sentences be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the purposes of sentencing.
I respectfully ask the Commission to:
• Conduct a comprehensive, data-driven review of federal sexual offense guideline ranges to determine whether they remain proportionate, evidence-based, and consistent with current recidivism research and sentencing outcomes.
• Review supervised release terms and special conditions in sexual offense cases to encourage individualized and narrowly tailored conditions that are linked to demonstrated risk and legitimate sentencing goals.
• Encourage courts to consider relevant factors such as age, criminal history, offense conduct, treatment participation, time offense-free, and demonstrated rehabilitation when imposing sentence and supervision.
• Study the cumulative effects of imprisonment, supervised release, special conditions, and reentry barriers on long-term public safety outcomes.
• Examine whether guideline provisions continue to meaningfully distinguish among varying levels of culpability and risk.
• Promote sentencing approaches that protect the public while supporting rehabilitation, accountability, successful reentry, and long-term community stability.
I submit these comments as someone directly affected by the long-term consequences of a sexual offense conviction and related supervision requirements. I fully acknowledge the seriousness of sexual offenses and the harm they can cause. At the same time, I believe sentencing policy is strongest when it remains grounded in evidence, proportionality, individualized assessment, and the possibility of rehabilitation. Public safety is best served when sentencing practices both hold individuals accountable and create realistic opportunities for lawful, stable, and productive lives after punishment has been completed.
Thank you for considering these comments and for your continued work to promote fair, effective, and evidence-based federal sentencing policy.
Respectfully submitted,
References:
United States Sentencing Commission, The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders (2017).
United States Sentencing Commission, Report to the Congress: Federal Child Pornography Offenses (2012).
United States Sentencing Commission, Federal Sentencing of Child Pornography: Non-Production Offenses (2021).
From personal experience, I encourage everyone to participate in the comment process. In response to the Commission’s 2024 request for comments, my submission included a request to examine the policy statement recommending the maximum term of supervised release be applied for sex offenses. This policy statement was introduced in 2001 before Congress amended 18 U.S.C. § 3583 in 2003 to extend the maximum for most sex offenses to LIFE. Since then, life terms of supervised release have become so common as to be nearly standard. I don’t know for certain whether my input had any bearing on the policy statement being rescinded in the 2025 amendments, but it didn’t hurt.
In the summer of 2025, the Sentencing Commission formed The Sentence Impact Advisory Group to ensure “that the experiences of sentenced individuals and their communities are meaningfully considered in the Commission’s work.” Although I was not one of the nine selected from more than 50 applicants, I am encouraged that the Commission sees benefit in considering sentencing effects on families and the community at large.
If anyone is interested in the details of the 2025 amendments, I recommend the “reader friendly” version of the amendments regarding supervised release. It is interesting and easy reading.
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/reader-friendly-amendments/202505_RF.pdf