{"id":13707,"date":"2011-06-16T21:42:58","date_gmt":"2011-06-17T02:42:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=13707"},"modified":"2011-06-16T21:53:55","modified_gmt":"2011-06-17T02:53:55","slug":"sentencing-judge-may-not-lengthen-prison-term-in-order-to-promote-rehabilitation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2011\/06\/sentencing-judge-may-not-lengthen-prison-term-in-order-to-promote-rehabilitation\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentencing Judge May Not Lengthen Prison Term in Order to Promote Rehabilitation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Earlier today, the United State Supreme Court ruled that federal judges may not impose or lengthen a defendant\u2019s sentence in order to promote rehabilitation.\u00a0 In\u00a0Tapia v. United States<\/em> (No. 10-5400), the district\u00a0judge apparently selected a sentence at the very top of the recommended guidelines range in order to give Tapia time to complete the Bureau of Prison\u2019s Residential Drug Abuse Program (a\/k\/a the 500 Hour Drug Program).\u00a0 The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning as a straightforward matter of statutory interpretation: 18 U.S.C.\u00a0\u00a7 3582(a) instructs sentencing judges to \u201crecogniz[e] that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s decision seems pretty clearly correct as a matter of law (the government actually declined to defend the ruling below), but what about policy \u2014 should Congress repeal that language from \u00a7 3582(a)? \u00a0Added to the law as part of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, this language reflected two then-common criticisms of the rehabilitative paradigm in criminal law: (1) the pragmatic objection that prison-based rehabilitative programming\u00a0did not work, and (2) the ethical objection that defendants should not be sentenced in excess of their just deserts in order to force social services on them.\u00a0 The first objection has less\u00a0force today than it did in the 1980\u2019s, as good studies now document\u00a0at\u00a0least modest levels\u00a0of success by some prison-based programs in reducing recidivism.\u00a0 However, the second objection remains no less important today than it was three decades ago.\u00a0 On the other hand, desert is hardly a precise concept in practice; there may be enough play in the joints to permit some consideration of rehabilitative programming at sentencing without exceeding desert-based constraints.\u00a0 If so, \u00a7 3582(a) as written (and as interpreted in Tapia<\/em>)\u00a0may be more limiting than is necessary.<\/p>\n

Cross posted at Life Sentences Blog<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Earlier today, the United State Supreme Court ruled that federal judges may not impose or lengthen a defendant\u2019s sentence in order to promote rehabilitation.\u00a0 In\u00a0Tapia v. United States (No. 10-5400), the district\u00a0judge apparently selected a sentence at the very top of the recommended guidelines range in order to give Tapia time to complete the Bureau […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[30,28,74,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13707","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal-justice","category-criminal-law-process","category-federal-sentencing","category-us-supreme-court","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13707","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13707"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13707\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13707"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13707"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13707"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}