Explore DEPC's drug sentencing-related research, resources, events and more
Drug sentencing is one of the primary focus areas of the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center. Center faculty and staff examine criminal and civil laws, policies, and enforcement efforts related to drug sentencing and develop programming, evidence-based research projects, and engagement opportunities on these issues and their impacts. Below, explore our work in the area of drug sentencing.
Policy and Data Analyses
Reports and Studies
The “tough on crime” era of the 1980s and 1990s ushered in a growing reliance on prisons, the ratcheting up of sentence lengths, and a broader expansion of the criminal justice system. Life sentences, historically rarely imposed, became increasingly commonplace in the 1980s through the 2000s, contributing to the ballooning imprisoned population. While there are growing concerns about the increased use of life sentences in the United States, there has been limited empirical study of these sentences. This report seeks to fill this gap with a particular focus on the federal sentencing system and the imposition of life sentences for drug offenses. Specifically, the current report documents federal life sentences imposed for drug trafficking over the last three decades, taking a closer look at the defendant and case-specific characteristics, and providing a descriptive account of the factors that are associated with those sentenced to life in prison in federal courts.
This paper from DEPC Executive Director Douglas A. Berman and Senior Research Associate Dr. Alex Fraga documents and examines critically the remarkable recent decline in the number of federal marijuana sentences imposed as states have begun fully legalizing marijuana for all uses by adults. The paper is forthcoming in the Fordham Urban Law Journal (March 2022).
Volume 34, Issue 1 of the Federal Sentencing Reporter contains articles generated in connection with the Understanding Drug Sentencing and its Contributions to Mass Punishment symposium co-hosted by the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center and the Academy for Justice.
Volume 18.1 of the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law contains articles generated as a result of The Controlled Substance Act at 50 Years conference co-sponsored by the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center and the Academy for Justice.
Grant Results
Authored by 2022-23 Marijuana and Drug Policy Grant recipient Associate Professor Colleen M. Berryessa, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University.
Building upon prior work, this experiment with a national sample of U.S. adults (N = 1,547) examines the influence of public beliefs about different "myths" surrounding the potential benefits of harsh drug sentencing on support for punitive sentencing policies for various drug crimes. Results show that increased public support for the use of harsh sentencing strategies for the serious trafficking of serious drugs appeared to be motivated by stronger beliefs about benefits for crime prevention, public safety, and public systems, rather than for public health. Decreased support for harsh sentencing strategies for minor trafficking and possession of marijuana was mediated by weaker beliefs about benefits for public health, crime prevention, public systems, and/or public safety. Overall, this research suggests that public beliefs about the potential benefits of punitive drug sentencing help to motivate their levels of support for different sentencing strategies, which should be considered when promoting sentencing reform efforts for drug crimes.
Coauthored by 2022-23 Marijuana and Drug Policy Grant recipient Associate Professor Colleen M. Berryessa, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University.
Objectives This study examines how a defendant’s addiction, prior criminal record, race, and drug type impact public support for criminalized and medicalized sentencing approaches to illegal drug use, as well as how such support may be moderated by participants’ levels of essentialist thinking. Methods This study is a fully-crossed, randomized experiment with a lay public sample (N = 1208). Results Public support for medicalized approaches to sentencing was significantly higher for oxycodone and heroin. Support for criminalized approaches was significantly higher for crack and cocaine, and when the defendant was Hispanic, Black, or had a violent criminal record. Essentialist thinking generally predicted increased support for criminalized approaches, but increased support for medicalized approaches when addiction was known. Conclusions This research highlights the role of different factors in shaping public support for drug sentencing approaches, as well as suggests that public attitudes about drugs are deeply intertwined with societal narratives about race, addiction, and criminality.
Authored by 2022-23 Marijuana and Drug Policy Grant recipient Associate Professor Colleen M. Berryessa, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University.
Feelings of social and moral outrage, including moral panic, toward those who commit drug crimes have been speculated as a key reason why some Americans have continued to support punitive sentencing approaches for drug offenses, even when faced with evidence that punitive drug sentencing laws have not achieved meaningful reductions in recidivism or use of illegal drugs. As such, examining how feelings of moral panic may underlie support for punitive sentencing should help us better understand the roots of public outrage toward these types of offenses, as well as how to best promote public support for evidence-based policies in sentencing reform efforts. Drawing from this background, this study uses a national sample of U.S. adults (N = 1,569) to examine if and how public feelings of moral panic (concern, hostility, consensus, disproportionality, volatility) toward different drug crimes motivate public support for harsher sentencing practices. Mediation results suggest that participants showing more support for harsh punishment and sentencing strategies for serious trafficking of serious drugs were motivated by heightened feelings of concern, hostility, and volatility. Further, participants showing less support for harsh punishment, as well as the use of mandatory minimums and truth-in-sentencing laws, for marijuana possession were motivated by fewer feelings of concern, hostility, consensus, volatility, and disproportionality. Similarly, participants showing less support for harsh punishment, as well as the use of mandatory minimums and truth-in-sentencing laws, for minor trafficking of marijuana were motivated by fewer feelings of concern, hostility, and volatility. Respondents also reported significantly fewer feelings of concern, hostility, and consensus toward opioid possession. This study suggests that moral panic helps shape public support for harsh sentencing strategies for certain drug crimes, and this has implications for understanding and addressing support for such policies.
Additional Programming
Drug Sentencing Focus Area Experts
Drugs on the Docket Podcast Episodes
Drugs on the Docket explores how U.S. court rulings—primarily those handed down from the Supreme Court—impact drug law and policy and continue to shape the War on Drugs. Drugs on the Docket unpacks various ways courts have engaged with and responded to the opioid epidemic, police discretion, the sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine, and more. The series, hosted by Hannah Miller, invites guests with expertise in criminal justice, drug policy, and drug enforcement to help us break down the sometimes complex and always interesting stories behind today’s drug law landscape.
The following episodes are related to drug sentencing. For episode show notes, links to listen, and see the full listing of episodes, visit the Drugs on the Docket page.
Host Hannah Miller and co-host Doug Berman, executive director of the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, speak with the Honorable Judge Carlton W. Reeves, Chair of the United States Sentencing Commission and U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi. Judge Reeves discusses his role as Chair of the Sentencing Commission and the recent activities of the Commission, including efforts taken to reform the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
Host Hannah Miller and co-host Doug Berman are taking a second look at Season 1 Episode 5, the United States Sentencing Commission, and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Listen as they discuss an amendment to the current sentencing guidelines, the research that led to this policy change, and the impact the amendment could have on thousands of incarcerated individuals.
Host Hannah Miller and co-host Doug Berman reflect on Season 1 Episode 4, and delve further into the history and inequitable application of mandatory minimum sentences and current legislative efforts to improve the federal legal system. Listen as they explore the upcoming case before SCOTUS, Pulsifer v. United States, and its potential to widen or narrow the safety valve through which thousands of federal defendants could find some relief from their mandatory minimum sentences.
Host Hannah Miller and co-host Doug Berman look back at Season 1 Episode 1, providing updates and insights into the continued struggle to change the crack to powder cocaine ratio from 18:1 to 1:1 and further reduce unwarranted sentencing disparities.
In this episode, host Hannah Miller and co-host Douglas Berman, executive director of the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, speak with Doug Passon and Mark Allenbaugh. Passon is a criminal defense lawyer of over twenty-five years, an award-winning documentary filmmaker, and host of the Set for Sentencing podcast. Allenbaugh is an attorney and entrepreneur with nationally-recognized expertise in federal sentencing, law, policy and practice, and is a co-founder of Sentencing Stats, LLC. Passon and Allenbaugh discuss the newly resurrected U.S. Sentencing Commission and the importance of data and storytelling when it comes to federal drug sentencing.
In this episode, host Hannah Miller and co-host Erik Luna, executive director of the Academy for Justice at Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, speak with Weldon Angelos and former United States District Court Judge Paul Cassell. In 2004, Angelos was sentenced to a mandatory 55-year prison term for a low-level marijuana offense due to the mandatory application of stacked firearm sentencing terms. Cassell, who presided over Angelos’ case, authored a pathbreaking opinion, calling the de facto life sentence “cruel, unjust, and irrational.” After serving twelve years of his sentence, Angelos’ family, and others championing his case, secured an early release. Since then, Angelos has become an activist, working with public officials to end cannabis prohibition and reform the federal criminal justice system. Today, Cassell is a professor at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law.
In our inaugural episode, host Hannah Miller and co-host Douglas Berman, executive director of the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, speak with Mark Osler, American legal scholar and law professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Osler played a role in clarifying that federal judges no longer had to follow the 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine in the federal sentencing guidelines by winning the 2009 case of Spears v. United States in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Blogs and Other Writings
Authored by DEPC Executive Director Douglas A. Berman
Coedited by DEPC Executive Director Douglas A. Berman
Coauthored by DEPC Executive Director Douglas A. Berman