Can the Federal Criminal Justice System Effectively Identify and Respond to Modern Sentencing “Hot Spots”?

Abstract

''Hot-spot policing'' has proven to be an effective modern crime reduction strategy. Crime mapping technologies and other forms of data analyses now enable police forces to identify crime hot spots and then invest in focused interventions to improve public safety. Given the success of hot—spot policing, other criminal justice actors should consider and explore how sophisticated data analyses might be used to identify and respond to ''hot-spot'' problem areas within their spheres of activity. Unfortunately, as the materials in this Issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter suggest, adopting a ''hot-spot'' approach to modern federal sentencing reform may be challenging. Sentencing data can often prove harder to collect and interpret than crime data, which creates difficulties in identifying accurately what are (and are not) critical sentencing ''hot spots'' in modern federal law and practice. Moreover, even when a consensus develops concerning what constitutes a federal sentencing ''hot spot,'' different criminal justice stakeholders will often have very different views concerning what focused interventions are needed to improve the federal sentencing system. This FSR Issue prompts consideration of these matters through its focus on the findings and recom- mendations in two massive new research reports that the U.S. Sentencing Commission published in early 2013. These two reports—one concerning the post-Booker federal sentencing system in general, the other concerning the operation and application of the child pornography guidelines—identify what the Com- mission considers problem areas in the operation of the federal sentencing system and suggest means to address them. But other materials in this Issue concerning these reports—including a set of original commentary from researchers and practitioners, as well as a lengthy letter from the Department of Justice to the Commission—highlight challenges posed by efforts to respond effectively to data-driven assess- ments of the functioning (and perceived dsyfunctioning) of the post-Booker federal sentencing system. The primary goal of this FSR Issue is to facilitate a better understanding of the nature and limitations of the new data and recommendations appearing in the USSC's two new reports. The Editors hope this FSR Issue enables participants and observers of the federal sentencing system to assess effectively what these reports tell us—and fail to tell us—about modern federal sentencing policies and practices. The U.S. Sentencing Commission's ''Hot Spot'' Mandate and Limitations The Sentencing Reform Act expressly gives the U.S. Sentencing Commission a duty to periodically ''review and revise, in consideration of comments and data coming to its attention, the (federal sen- tencing) guidelines.'' 1 The SRA further instructs that, in ''fulfilling its duties and in exercising its powers, the Commission shall consult with authorities on, and individual and institutional representatives of, various aspects of the Federal criminal justice system;'' 2 it even calls upon certain authorities to ''at least annually, submit to the Commission a written report commenting on the operation of the Commission's guidelines, suggesting changes in the guidelines that appear to be warranted, and otherwise assessing the Commission's work.'' 3 Through these statutory instructions, Congress has essentially mandated that the Commission, aided by key federal criminal justice stakeholders, adopt a kind of ''hot spot'' approach to reviewing and revising the federal sentencing guidelines.