Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder at the Charles Hamilton...

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder at the
Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice and Congressional
Black Caucus Symposium 'Rethinking Federal Sentencing Policy 25th Anniversary
of the Sentencing Reform Act'

WASHINGTON, June 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following are remarks as
prepared for delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder:

Congressman Conyers, thank you for your kind introduction. It is my pleasure
to join this esteemed group of federal judges, academics, sentencing
practitioners, advocates, and Members of Congress. The Congressional Black
Caucus and Harvard Law School's Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race
and Justice deserve enormous credit for hosting this important and timely
event. The CBC has long spearheaded the movement to reexamine our criminal
justice system to ensure that it is more just and fair. We at the Justice
Department look forward to joining with you as we reexamine sentencing and
corrections policy. I'd also like to acknowledge the tremendous contributions
of Justice Breyer who was one of the original members of the United States
Sentencing Commission. He has played a key role in reforming federal criminal
sentencing policy and procedure throughout his career. In fact, many of you
here today have contributed tirelessly to the evolution of federal sentencing
law and we all have the same goal: to create a sentencing system that is
predictable and fair.

The federal sentencing system, which includes both sentencing guidelines and
mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, has undergone significant change since
the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker. The guidelines
continue to provide a sentencing baseline in all federal criminal cases.
However, Sentencing Commission data show that the percentage of defendants
sentenced within the guidelines has decreased since the decision. Although
the full impact of recent trends in sentencing jurisprudence is still unclear,
these developments should be monitored carefully. For example, we should
assess whether current sentencing practices show an increase in unwarranted
sentencing disparities based upon regional differences or even differences in
judicial philosophy among judges working in the same courthouse. But we must
also be prepared to accept the fact that not every disparity is an unwelcome
one. The desire to have an almost mechanical system of sentencing has led us
away from individualized, fact-based determinations that I believe, within
reason, should be our goal.

We must also be aware of the fact that the federal inmate population continues
to increase. This development puts an enormous strain on correctional
resources. The number of inmates in federal prisons, state prisons, or local
jails has quadrupled since 1980, reaching more than 2.2 million today. Of
particular concern, the burgeoning prison population limits the ability of
corrections officials to provide drug treatment and other services necessary
to minimize recidivism. A 2002 study from the Bureau of Justice Statistics
tracked a sample of more than a quarter-million prisoners released in 15
states in 1994. Within three years, two-thirds of these offenders were
rearrested at least once for a new offense, nearly half were convicted for a
new crime, and another quarter were re-sentenced to prison for a new
conviction.

The current federal sentencing system continues to be a target for criticism
from judges, academics, and attorneys across our nation. These criticisms
range from concerns about mandatory minimums to the use of acquitted conduct
in sentencing decisions. Accordingly, a thorough review of federal sentencing
and corrections policies, with an eye toward possible reform, is welcome and
necessary.

The twenty-fifth anniversary of the Sentencing Reform Act provides a good
opportunity to reflect on the state of federal sentencing. The U.S.
Sentencing Commission has begun a review of the impact of Booker and of the
federal sentencing system as a whole by soliciting testimony at regional
hearings. Those hearings will identify those practices that contribute to the
goals of the Sentencing Reform Act, and those practices that do not.

At the same time, the Department of Justice has begun its own internal review
of sentencing and corrections policy. I have asked members of the DOJ
community - both in Washington, DC and in the U.S. Attorneys Offices around
the country - to participate in the Sentencing and Corrections Working Group
which is chaired by the Deputy Attorney General. Our review will consider:

-- the structure of federal sentencing, including the role of mandatory
minimums;
-- the Department's own charging and sentencing policies;
-- alternatives to incarceration and re-entry;
-- eliminating the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine; and
-- an examination of other unwarranted disparities in federal sentencing.

As part of that review, we are soliciting the input of key stakeholders such
as law enforcement, members of Congress, the defense and advocacy community,
and judges.

We are approaching this effort with a specific set of core values. We will
apply those principles to create a sentencing and corrections system that
protects the public, is fair to both victims and defendants, eliminates
unwarranted sentencing disparities, reduces recidivism, and controls the
federal prison population. In doing so we must create a system that allows us
to dismantle gangs and drug trafficking organizations that plague too many of
our nation's streets, and that allows us to effectively combat offenses as
varied as violent crime, child exploitation, sex trafficking, and financial
fraud. But focusing on punishment is not enough. The federal sentencing
system must also embrace the President's commitment to reducing recidivism and
providing opportunities to offenders to become contributing members of society
at the conclusion of their sentence.

Public trust and confidence are also essential elements of an effective
criminal justice system. Our laws and their enforcement must not only be
fair, they also must be perceived as fair. A perception of unfairness
undermines governmental authority in the criminal justice process. It leads
victims and witnesses of crime to think twice before cooperating with law
enforcement, tempts jurors to ignore the law and facts when deciding a
criminal case, and causes the public to question the motives of government
officials. Accordingly, we must create a system where the factual basis for
sentencing in a particular case is clear to all parties and to the public, and
where the sentences themselves are truly commensurate with the crime
committed.

One thing is very clear to me: we must review our federal cocaine sentencing
policy. Fifteen years ago, the United States Sentencing Commission first
reported on the differences in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine.
Since then, the need to reassess the federal cocaine sentencing laws has only
grown stronger. This Administration firmly believes that the disparity in
crack and powder cocaine sentences is unwarranted, creates a perception of
unfairness, and must be eliminated. This change should be addressed in this
Congress.

Many of you in Congress already have introduced or co-sponsored legislation to
address the disparity between crack and powder cocaine. We look forward to
working with you and other Members of Congress over the coming months to deal
with this issue.

There is no tension between a sentencing scheme that is effective and fair and
one that is tough and equitable. We must work toward these twin goals and we
must do so now. Too much time has passed, too many people have been treated
in a disparate manner, and too many of our citizens have come to have doubts
about our criminal justice system. We must be honest with each other and have
the courage to ask difficult questions of ourselves and our system. We must
break out of the old and tired partisan stances that have stood in the way of
needed progress and reform. We have a moment in time that must be seized in
order to insure that all of our citizens are treated in a way that is
consistent with the ideals embodied in our founding documents. This
Department of Justice is prepared to act. We look forward to working with all
of you.

Thank you.

SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice, +1-202-514-2007, TDD: +1-202-514-1888