Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Mitigation evidence consists of information about an accused person that is typically used to advocate for a less severe sentence. Such evidence most frequently consists of information related to the crime and personal factors that can be separated into two broad categories: deficits and assets-based mitigation. This article focuses on the importance of assets-based mitigation in sentencing and evaluates if and how state sentencing procedures contemplate and allow for consideration of such evidence. A content analysis of available state sentencing procedures reveals that states tend to circumscribe mitigation to factors related to the crime or deficits, but largely neglect to give a vehicle to consider assets-based mitigation, which should play a central role in achieving just outcomes. This article therefore argues for reform to sentencing laws to better accommodate assets-based mitigation by including information related to the defendant’s capacity for growth, self-improvement, and redemption.

Keywords

criminal justice policy sentencing criminal trial sentencing policy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alabama Sentencing Commission. (2016). Presumptive and voluntary sentencing standards manual. Retrieved from https://acis.alabama.gov/displaydocs.cfm?no=939792&event=5GJ0TZDX0

Alaska Code of Criminal Procedure, AK Stat § 12.55.155 (2014).

Arizona Criminal Code, AZ Rev. Stat. § 13-701 (2018).

Arkansas Criminal Offences, AR Code § 5-4-401 (2017).

Arkansas Sentencing Commission. (2017). Arkansas sentencing standards grid & seriousness reference table preliminary rankings. Retrieved from http://www.arkansas.gov/asc/pdfs/Proposed-Seriousness-Reference-Table-and-Grid-MARK-UP-COPY.pdf

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

Barnett

M. E.

Brodsky

S. L.

Davis

C. M.

(2004). When mitigation evidence makes a difference: Effects of psychological mitigating evidence on sentencing decisions in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22, 751-770.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.

Brewer

T. W.

(2004). Race and jurors’ receptivity to mitigation in capital cases: The effect of jurors,’ defendants,’ and victims’ race in combination. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 529-545.

10.

Buchanan

Nooe

R. M.

(2017). Defining social work with holistic public defense: Challenges and implications for practice. Social Work, 62, 333-339.

11.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2018a). Correctional populations in the United States, 2016. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus16.pdf

12.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2018b). Reentry trends in the U.S. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/reentry_contents.cfm

13.

California Criminal Rules 4.421, 4.423 (2018).

14.

California Penal Code, Ca. Penal Code § 1170(b) (2007).

15.

Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth. (2015). Trial defense guidelines: Representing a child client facing a possible life sentence. Retrieved from https://www.fairsentencingofyouth.org/wp-content/uploads/Trial-Defense-Guidelines-Representing-a-Child-Client-Facing-a-Possible-Life-Sentence.pdf

16.

Colorado Criminal Code, Co. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-401 (2016).

17.

Connecticut Penal Code, CT Gen. Stat. § 53a-38 (2018).

18.

Daly

(1989). Gender, work-family relations, and sentencing. Gender & Society, 3, 9-36.

19.

Eberhardt

(2019). Biased: Uncovering the hidden prejudice that shapes what we see, think, and do. Viking.

20.

Federal Crimes and Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (2016).

21.

Federal Judicial Center. (1990). Report of the federal courts study committee. Retrieved from https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/RepFCSC.pdf

22.

Florida Criminal Procedure and Corrections, Fla. Stat. § 921.0026(2) (2018).

23.

Freed

(1992). Federal sentencing in the wake of guidelines: Unacceptable limits on the discretion of sentencers (Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, Paper 2050). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/45f3/f2b4eff82e69845ea70dfd952bd2f3f2c691.pdf

24.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007).

25.

Garvey

(1998). Aggravation and mitigation in capital cases: What do jurors think? Columbia Law Review, 98, 1538-1576.

26.

Georgia Criminal Procedure, Ga. Code § 17-10-1 (2017).

27.

Gohara

(2014). Grace notes: A case for making mitigation the heart of noncapital sentencing. American Journal of Criminal Law, 41, Article 41.

28.

Gohara

(2018). In defense of the injured: How trauma-informed criminal defense can reform sentencing. American Journal of Criminal Law, 45, Article 1.

29.

Haney

Sontag

Costanzo

(1994). Deciding to take a life: Capital juries, sentencing instructions, and the jurisprudence of death. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 149-176.

30.

Hawaii Penal Code, Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 706-606 (2018).

31.

Hofer

P. J.

(2007). United States v. Booker as a natural experiment: Using empirical research to inform the federal sentencing policy debate. Criminology & Public Policy, 6, 433-460.

32.

Idaho Criminal Procedure, Idaho Code § 19–2521 (2014).

33.

Illinois Criminal Code and Procedure, 730 ILCS 5/5-4-1 (2018).

34.

Indiana Criminal Law and Procedure, Indiana Code § 35-38-1-7.1 (2017).

35.

Iowa Criminal Law and Procedure, IA Code § 902.9 (2018).

36.

Kansas Crimes and Punishments, KS Stat § 21-6815 (2018).

37.

Kentucky Penal Code, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.070 (2018).

38.

Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007).

39.

Kremling

Smith

M. D.

Cochran

Bjerregaard

Fogel

(2007). The role of mitigating factors in capital sentencing before and after McKoy v. North Carolina. Justice Quarterly, 24, 357-381.

40.

Levy

Barocas

(2017). Designing against discrimination in online markets. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 32 (3), 1183–1238.

41.

Listwan

S. J.

(2009). Reentry for serious and violent offenders: An analysis of program attrition. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 154-169.

42.

Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).

43.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, La. Code Crim. Proc. Art 894.1 (2018).

44.

Lovegrove

(2010). Proportionality theory, personal mitigation, and the people’s sense of justice. The Cambridge Law Journal, 69, 321-352.

45.

Lynch

Haney

(2000). Discrimination and instructional comprehension: Guided discretion, racial bias, and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 337-358.

46.

Maine Criminal Code, Maine Rev. Stat. § 17A-1252-C (2017).

47.

Maryland State Commission of Criminal Sentencing Policy. (2018). Maryland sentencing guidelines manual. Retrieved from http://www.msccsp.org/Files/Guidelines/MSGM/Version_10.1.pdf

48.

Massachusetts Sentencing Commission. (2017). Advisory sentencing guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/04/26/jud-final-advisory-sentencing-guidelines.pdf

49.

Michigan Judicial Institute. (2016). Sentencing guidelines manual. Retrieved from https://mjieducation.mi.gov/documents/felony-sentencing-resources/493-2016-sgm/file

50.

Miller

(2013). Psychological evaluations in the criminal justice system: Basic principles and best practices. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 83-91.

51.

Minnesota Sentencing Commission. (2018). Minnesota sentencing guidelines and commentary. Retrieved from http://mn.gov/msgc-stat/documents/NewGuidelines/2018/Guidelines.pdf

52.

Mississippi Criminal Procedure, Miss. Code § 99-19-21 (2017).

53.

Missouri Crimes and Punishment, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 557.036 (2018).

54.

Montana Criminal Procedure, Mont. Code. Ann § 46-18-222 (2017).

55.

Nebraska Crimes and Punishments, Nebr. Rev. Stat. § 28-1354 (2017).

56.

Nevada Procedure in Criminal Cases; NRS. § 176.015 (2017).

57.

New Hampshire Criminal Code, N.H. Rev. Stat. § 651:2 (2017).

58.

New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, N.J. Stat. § 2c:44-1 (2018).

59.

New Mexico Criminal Procedure, N. Mex. Stat. § 31-18-15.1 (2017).

60.

New York Penal Law, N.Y. Pen. L. § 70.71 (2018).

61.

North Carolina Criminal Procedure Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.16 (2018).

62.

North Dakota Criminal Code, N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-32-02.3.1, 12.1-32-02.3.2 (2017).

63.

North Dakota Judicial Procedure, N.D.C.C. §§ 29-26-17, 29-26-18 (2017).

64.

Nowacki

(2017). An intersectional approach to race/ethnicity, sex, and age disparity in federal sentencing outcomes: An examination of policy across time periods. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17, 97-116.

65.

Ohio Crimes Procedure, ORC § 2929.19 (2018).

66.

Oklahoma Criminal Procedure, OS § 22-973a, 975, 985.1 (2018).

67.

Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation, Or. Admin. R 213-008-0002 (2013).

68.

Orlando

. Chief Attorney. (2018). Connecticut penal code—Updated and revised (2018-R-0073). Retrieved from https://www.cga.ct.gov/2018/rpt/pdf/2018-R-0073.pdf

69.

Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines, 204 Pa. Code §§ 303.1, 303.10, 303.11, 303.12, 303.13 (2005).

70.

Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989).

71.

Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2010).

72.

Perlin

M. L.

(1996). “Dignity was the first to leave”: Godinez v. Moran, Colin Ferguson, and the trial of mentally disabled criminal defendants. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 14, 61-81.

73.

Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (2009).

74.

Rhode Island Criminal Procedure; R.I. Gen. L. § 12-19.3-3 (2017).

75.

Riner

R. C.

(2015). Confronting the death penalty: How language influences jurors in capital cases. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

76.

Riner

R. C.

Vartkessian

E. S.

(2019). Communicating humanity: How defense attorneys use mitigation narratives to advocate for clients. In Avineri

Graham

L. R.

Johnson

E. J.

Riner

R. C.

Rosa

(Eds.), Language and social justice in practice (pp. 235-242). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

77.

Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986).

78.

Sorensen

J. R.

Pilgrim

R. L.

(1999). An actuarial risk assessment of violence posed by capital murder defendants. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 90, 1251-1270.

79.

South Carolina Criminal Procedures, SC Code § 17-25-10 (2018).

80.

South Carolina Sentencing Guidelines Commission. (2001). Truth in sentencing advisory sentencing guidelines and criminal justice plan. Retrieved from https://www.scstatehouse.gov/Archives/Legislative/Sentence.doc

81.

South Dakota Codified Laws, SDLRC § 22-6-11 (2018).

82.

Spohn

(2013). The effects of the offender’s race, ethnicity, and sex on federal sentencing outcomes in the guidelines era. Law and Contemporary Problems, 76, 75-104.

83.

Spohn

Beichner

(2000). Is preferential treatment of female offenders a thing of the past? A multisite study of gender, race, and imprisonment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 11, 149-184.

84.

State of Delaware Criminal Justice Council. (2018). Delaware sentencing accountability commission benchbook. Retrieved from https://cjc.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/61/2018/01/Benchbook-2018v2.pdf

85.

State of Vermont Agency of Human Services Department of Corrections. (2013). Sentencing options manual. Retrieved from http://www.doc.state.vt.us/about/what/sentencing-options-manual/view

86.

Stetler

(2018). The past, present, and future of the mitigation profession: Fulfilling the constitutional requirement of individualized sentencing in capital cases. Hofstra Law Review, 46(4), Article 1161.

87.

Tennard v. Drekte, 542 U.S. 274 (2004).

88.

Tennessee Criminal Procedure; Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210 (2017).

89.

Texas Penal Code, Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.01-12.50 (2017).

90.

Tonry

(2016). Sentencing fragments: Penal reform in America, 1975-2025. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

91.

United States Sentencing Commission. (2017). An overview of mandatory minimum penalties in the federal criminal justice system. Retrieved from https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20170711_Mand-Min.pdf

92.

United States Sentencing Commission. (2018). Chapter 5—Determining sentence. Retrieved from https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2018-guidelines-manual/2018-chapter-5#NaN

93.

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

94.

United States v. Fanfan, 558 F.3d 105 (1st Circ. 2009).

95.

Utah Sentencing Commission. (2017). Adult sentencing and release guidelines. Retrieved from https://justice.utah.gov/Sentencing/Guidelines/Adult/2017%20Adult%20Sentencing%20and%20Release%20Guidelines.pdf

96.

Vartkessian

E. S.

(2011). Dangerously biased: How the Texas capital sentencing statute encourages jurors to be unreceptive to mitigation evidence. Quinnipiac Law Review, 29, Article 237.

97.

Vartkessian

E. S.

Sorensen

J. R.

Kelly

(2017). Tinkering with the machinery of death: An analysis of juror decision-making in Texas death penalty trials during two statutory eras. Justice Quarterly, 34, 1-24.

98.

Vermont Crimes and Criminal Procedure, 13 V.S.A. § 2303 (2018).

99.

Virginia Criminal Procedure, Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-298.01 (2017).

100.

Washington Crimes and Punishments, RCW 9.94A.535 (2018).

101.

West Virginia Crimes and Their Punishment, WV Ann. Code § 61-11-16 (2017).

102.

Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003).

103.

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000).

104.

Wisconsin Criminal Procedure, Wis. Stat. § 973.017 (2017).

105.

Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976).

106.

Wyoming Criminal Procedure, Wyo. Stat. §7-13-201 (2017).

Including Assets-Based Mitigation in Sentencing

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References