Podcasts about united states sentencing commission

Rachel Barkow is the Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the Faculty Director of the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU. From 2013 to 2019, she served as a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission. From 2010 to 2020, she was a member of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Conviction Integrity Policy Advisory Panel and co-chaired Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's transition committee on police accountability in 2021. She is also amongst the most cited legal scholars of all time.  For a transcript of Rachel's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Rachel Barkow is the Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the Faculty Director of the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU. From 2013 to 2019, she served as a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission. From 2010 to 2020, she was a member of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Conviction Integrity Policy Advisory Panel and co-chaired Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's transition committee on police accountability in 2021. She is also amongst the most cited legal scholars of all time.  For a transcript of Rachel's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Trump and Musk are on a self-declared mission to destroy the bureaucracy and the “deep state" — and they're taking aim at the government's independent agencies. CAFE Contributor and administrative law expert Rachel Barkow breaks down why an almost 100-year-old Supreme Court precedent is at risk of being overturned and the danger for the rule of law. Rachel Barkow is the Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the Faculty Director of the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU. From 2013 to 2019, she served as a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission. From 2010 to 2020, she was a member of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Conviction Integrity Policy Advisory Panel and co-chaired Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's transition committee on police accountability in 2021. She is also amongst the most cited legal scholars of all time.  For a transcript of Rachel's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

CAFE Contributor Rachel Barkow reflects on the pardons issued by President Trump and former President Biden, highlighting the flaws in the pardon process and necessary reforms. Rachel Barkow is the Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the Faculty Director of the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU. From 2013 to 2019, she served as a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission. From 2010 to 2020, she was a member of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Conviction Integrity Policy Advisory Panel and co-chaired Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's transition committee on police accountability in 2021. She is also amongst the most cited legal scholars of all time.  For a transcript of Rachel's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Rachel Barkow is the Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the Faculty Director of the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU. From 2013 to 2019, she served as a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission. From 2010 to 2020, she was a member of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Conviction Integrity Policy Advisory Panel and co-chaired Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's transition committee on police accountability in 2021. She is also amongst the most cited legal scholars of all time.  For a transcript of Rachel's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Rachel Barkow is the Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the Faculty Director of the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU. From 2013 to 2019, she served as a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission. From 2010 to 2020, she was a member of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Conviction Integrity Policy Advisory Panel and co-chaired Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's transition committee on police accountability in 2021. She is also amongst the most cited legal scholars of all time.  For a transcript of Rachel's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Rachel Barkow is the Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the Faculty Director of the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU. From 2013 to 2019, she served as a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission. From 2010 to 2020, she was a member of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Conviction Integrity Policy Advisory Panel and co-chaired Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's transition committee on police accountability in 2021. She is also amongst the most cited legal scholars of all time.  For a transcript of Rachel's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Rachel Barkow is the Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the Faculty Director of the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU. From 2013 to 2019, she served as a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission. From 2010 to 2020, she was a member of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Conviction Integrity Policy Advisory Panel and co-chaired Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's transition committee on police accountability in 2021. She is also amongst the most cited legal scholars of all time.  For a transcript of Rachel's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Rachel Barkow is the Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the Faculty Director of the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU. From 2013 to 2019, she served as a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission. From 2010 to 2020, she was a member of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Conviction Integrity Policy Advisory Panel and co-chaired Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's transition committee on police accountability in 2021. She is also amongst the most cited legal scholars of all time.  For a transcript of Rachel's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

GUEST 1 OVERVIEW: Warren Mundine AO is an Australian Aboriginal leader and politician. He was the National President of the Australian Labor Party, but quit the party in 2012. He was appointed chairman of the Coalition government's Indigenous Advisory Council by then-prime minister, Tony Abbott. Warren was a leading opponent of the Voice to Parliament campaign. GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., is an economist and a world-recognized expert on guns and crime and also founder of The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC).  During the Trump administration, he served as the Senior Advisor for Research and Statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and then the Office of Legal Policy in the U.S. Department of Justice. Lott has held research or teaching positions at various academic institutions, including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, UCLA, and Rice University, and was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-1989. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman noted: “John Lott has few equals as a perceptive analyst of controversial public policy issues.” Lott is a prolific author and has written ten books, including “More Guns, Less Crime,” “The Bias Against Guns,” and “Freedomnomics.” His most recent books are “Dumbing Down the Courts: How politics keeps the smartest judges off the bench” and “Gun Control Myths.”

CPRC was founded by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., an economist and a world-recognized expert on guns and crime. During the Trump administration, he served as the Senior Advisor for Research and Statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and then the Office of Legal Policy in the U.S. Department of Justice. Lott has held research or teaching positions at various academic institutions, including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, UCLA, and Rice University, and was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-1989. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA. https://crimeresearch.org/tag/cprc-original-research/ https://x.com/CrimeResearch1 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In a rare interview, John Gleeson, the former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, shares his experiences as a prosecutor in the government's 1986 and 1992 cases against Gambino crime family boss John Gotti. Sitting down with co-hosts Dutch and Giovanni, Gleeson gives listeners a behind-the-scenes look into how he and the government crafted the case against Gotti and his co-defendants, why they risked indicting him after losing the first trial and how Gleeson secured his star witness, Salvatore “Sammy the Bull” Gravano.   About John Gleeson: John Gleeson is a practicing American attorney and former federal judge of 22 years. Prior to his judgeship, he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York where he tried infamous Mafia boss John Gotti. In August of 2022, Gleeson was appointed to the United States Sentencing Commission by President Joseph R. Biden. Today, Gleeson continues to practice law in New York State.   Buy John Gleeson's book “The Gotti Wars”  Produced by The Mob Museum. Season One of Inside the Life is presented by Levy Online and Levy Production Group. To watch episodes of this podcast, visit YouTube For behind-the-scenes photos, merchandise and exclusive content, visit insidethelife.org For more on the Museum visit themobmuseum.org  

*Content warning: childhood abuse, child sexual abuse, rape, statutory rape, non-consensual pornography, pedophilia, human trafficking, suicidal ideation, and suicide.As shared in Part 1 of the Something Was Wrong Season 15 Episode 5 Updates, Diana's episode,The Devil in Disguise, was released on March 2nd, 2023. In the episode, Diana (a mother, medical professional, sister, and friend to many) bravely shares about her relationship with the monster who she would eventually find out had sexually abused her daughter and niece. The episode also highlights some of what came next for Diana after the FBI unearthed the truth about her former partner's abusive behavior and trafficking attempts. The Broken Cycle Media team is deeply grateful that Diana was willing to join us today to share more about her journey and the recent justice she and some of his other victims have been given. Please note pseudonyms are used in this episode to protect guests anonymity. This episode is dedicated in loving memory of Diana's sister, Anne Marie.SWW S15 E5 [Diana] The Devil in Disguise: https://wondery.com/shows/something-was-wrong/episode/10716-diana-the-devil-in-disguise/RAINN Network: http://www.rainn.orgRAINN Statistics on Childhood Sexual Abuse: https://www.rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teensUnited States Sentencing Commission. (2021). Federal Sentencing of Child Pornography: Production Offenses. In United States Sentencing Commission. Retrieved June 25, 2024, from https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2021/20211013_Production-CP.pdf“Quick Facts: Child Pornography Offenders.” (2023). United States Sentencing Commission. Retrieved June 25, 2024, from https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Child_Pornography_FY22.pdfFor additional resources and a list of related non-profit organizations, please visit: http://somethingwaswrong.com/resourcesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On Today's Episode – Mark and John dive right in and start us off by talking some of Biden's history of lying.  With his possible cognitive decline along with major media outlets so trying to protect him, Biden is one of the weakest candidates for President of all time.  We jump over to jobs, and what are the true numbers.  People feel like their wages are down, but the Biden Administration keeps saying wages are up, but they are NOT up against the record inflation.  The government puts all these regulations on, which causes operating costs to go up, or they make businesses responsible for functions that are a government function.  When you look at Biden, Warren, or Sanders – they spend all day talking about tax the rich.  They never tell us what a “fair share” is, nor do they talk about 1% paying 40% of the budget.    Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, is an economist and a world-recognized expert on guns and crime. During the Trump administration, he served as the Senior Advisor for Research and Statistics in the U.S. Department of Justice. Lott has held research or teaching positions at various academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, UCLA, and Rice University, and was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-1989. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA.

Nobel laureate Milton Friedman noted: “John Lott has few equals as a perceptive analyst of controversial public policy issues.”

Lott is a prolific author for both academic and popular publications. He has published over 100 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals and written ten books, including “More Guns, Less Crime,” “The Bias Against Guns,” and “Gun Control Myths.”

elitefts Limited Edition Apparel: https://www.elitefts.com/shop/apparel/limited-edition.html            Support and help the Podcast grow by Joining The Crew:  https://whop.com/tabletalkcrew/             In this 271st podcast episode of Dave Tate's Table Talk, Rick Collins takes a seat.   Rick Collins is a lawyer and author who is internationally recognized as a legal authority in the field of testosterone and other anabolic steroids and performance-enhancing substances. Based out of New York as a principal in the law firm of Collins Gann McCloskey & Barry, he has a nationwide practice and has defended countless clients against investigations and criminal prosecutions alleging the unlawful marketing, distribution or prescription of anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, or non-compliant dietary supplements. He represents numerous companies in the dietary supplement industry. He is also a nationally Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist (NSCA-CSCS) and former personal trainer and competitive bodybuilder.    He served on a working group of the United States Sentencing Commission in revising the federal anabolic steroid sentencing guidelines in 2006 and was a consultant on the documentary film “Bigger, Stronger, Faster*” (2008), in which he also appeared on camera. He has contributed chapters to three textbooks on sports nutrition, has been published in the scientific literature on issues relating to performance drugs, and is a frequent contributor to various health and fitness publications.    He has served as Legal Counsel to the International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) and the International Federation of BodyBuilders (IFBB). Rick received his law degree from Hofstra University School of Law, where he attended on a full academic scholarship and served on the Law Review. He can be reached at 516-294-0300. To learn more about Rick, please go to www.RickCollins.com.                   ABOUT THE HOST   Dave Tate is the founder and co-owner of elitefts.com. He is the author of twenty books and has logged more than 40,000 hours of training and consulting. Dave is married to elitefts co-owner Traci Arnold-Tate, and they reside in London, Ohio, with their two sons. Personal Credo: Live, Learn, Pass on™.   Dave's IG: https://www.instagram.com/underthebar/?hl=en             SPONSORS     elitefts   If you can put it in a gym bag or load weight on it, we have you covered.     https://www.elitefts.com/   Use Code TABLE TALK for 10% off your first elitefts order.           SUPPORT THE SHOW   All profits from elitefts Limited Edition Apparel, Table Talk Coffee, and Team elitefts Workouts, Programs, and Training eBooks support Dave Tate's Table Talk Podcast. Shop these elitefts items: https://www.elitefts.com/content/table-talk/      Support Dave Tate's Table Talk podcast by joining the crew.  https://whop.com/tabletalkcrew/      elitefts Shop: https://www.elitefts.com/      elitefts IG: https://www.instagram.com/elitefts/        SPONSORSHIP/PODCAST INQUIRIES   For sponsorships or business inquiries, reach out to tabletalkmedia@elitefts.net   For Podcast inquiries, please DM @elitefts on Instagram or email tabletalkguest@elitefts.net     #DDTTTP   #DTTTP   #ddttp

GUEST OVERVIEW: Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. is an economist and a world-recognized expert on guns and crime. During the Trump administration, he served as the Senior Advisor for Research and Statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and then the Office of Legal Policy in the U.S. Department of Justice. Lott has held research or teaching positions at various academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, UCLA, and Rice University, and was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-1989. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA. Lott is a prolific author for both academic and popular publications. He has published over 100 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals and written ten books, including “More Guns, Less Crime,” “The Bias Against Guns,” and “Freedomnomics.” His most recent books are “Dumbing Down the Courts: How politics keeps the smartest judges off the bench” and “Gun Control Myths.” https://crimeresearch.org/

Environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, has been in the news a lot lately—particularly the “E” when it comes to new and evolving regulations. There's been a greater push in the United States for transparency and disclosure of data regarding businesses' environmental impact, driven largely by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau. In fact, California is expected to soon be the first US state to require company reporting related to environmental impact. So, what does this all mean for companies that are working to become more sustainable? How do you even begin to report on emissions and environmental impact? In this episode of LRN's Principled Podcast host Eric Morehead explores how transparency plays a crucial role in corporate sustainability with Andrea Peters, the senior counsel of Interface.  For a full transcript of this podcast, visit the episode page at LRN.com.  Guest: Andrea Peters Andrea Peters is senior counsel for Interface, Inc., a global commercial flooring company (NASDAQ: TILE).  In her role, she provides legal support for the company's global operations, including Research & Development, Sales, Marketing, Procurement, Tax and Human Resources, and she also manages Interface's global compliance program. Andrea has over 26 years of legal experience, over two-thirds of which comes from working in-house at companies such as Interface, CAN Capital, The Weather Channel, the General Electric Company and GAMBRO Healthcare.    Andrea earned her J.D. from the Vanderbilt University School of Law and her Bachelor of Arts degree in Advertising from the Pennsylvania State University, where she was the student marshall (valedictorian) for the College of Communications.  Andrea resides in Atlanta with her 10-year-old daughter.  She has gone sky diving twice, bungee jumping once, and ziplining once. She enjoys cooking, wine and travel. When she retires, Andrea plans to go back to college to audit all of the hard but interesting classes without worrying about writing papers or taking exams.  Host: Eric Morehead Eric Morehead is a member of LRN's Advisory Services team and has over 20 years of experience working with organizations seeking to address compliance issues and build effective compliance and ethics programs. Eric conducts program assessments and examines specific compliance risks, he drafts compliance policies and codes of conduct, works with organizations to build and improve their compliance processes and tools, and provides live training for Boards of Directors, executives, managers, and employees. Eric ran his own consultancy for six years where he advised clients on compliance program enhancements and assisted in creating effective compliance solutions. Eric was formally the Head of Advisory Services for NYSE Governance Services, a leading compliance training organization, where he was responsible for all aspects of NYSE Governance Services' compliance consulting arm. Prior to joining NYSE, Eric was an Assistant General Counsel of the United States Sentencing Commission in Washington, DC. Eric served as the chair of the policy team that amended the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines in 2010. Eric also spent nearly a decade as a litigation attorney in Houston, Texas where he focused on white-collar and regulatory cases and represented clients at trial and before various agencies including SEC, OSHA and CFTC.

On April 27, 2023, the United States Sentencing Commission submitted to Congress amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines that would recommend lower sentences for certain defendants. If these changes are applied retroactively, some 18,775 people in federal prison could become eligible for a sentencing reduction—including 3,288 individuals who could be eligible for immediate release. Mary Price of Families Against Mandatory Minimums joins Rattling the Bars to discuss the proposed amendments and what they could mean for thousands of prisoners and their families.Mary Price is General Counsel of FAMM. She directs the FAMM Litigation Project and advocates for reform of federal sentencing and corrections law and policy before Congress, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the Bureau of Prisons, and the Department of Justice.Public comments can be made through FAMM's website. The deadline for submitting public comments is June 23, 2023.Click here to read the episode transcript.Production: Cameron GranadinoStudio Production: David HebdenPost-Production: Cameron GranadinoThe Real News is an independent, viewer-supported, radical media network. Help us continue producing Rattling the Bars by following us and becoming a monthly sustainer: Donate: https://therealnews.com/donate-pod-rtbSign up for our newsletter: https://therealnews.com/nl-pod-rtbGet Rattling the Bars updates: https://therealnews.com/up-pod-rtbLike us on Facebook: https://facebook.com/therealnewsFollow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/therealnews

On April 27, 2023, the United States Sentencing Commission submitted to Congress amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines that would recommend lower sentences for certain defendants. If these changes are applied retroactively, some 18,775 people in federal prison could become eligible for a sentencing reduction—including 3,288 individuals who could be eligible for immediate release. Mary Price of Families Against Mandatory Minimums joins Rattling the Bars to discuss the proposed amendments and what they could mean for thousands of prisoners and their families.Mary Price is General Counsel of FAMM. She directs the FAMM Litigation Project and advocates for reform of federal sentencing and corrections law and policy before Congress, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the Bureau of Prisons, and the Department of Justice.Public comments can be made through FAMM's website. The deadline for submitting public comments is June 23, 2023.Click here to read the episode transcript.Production: Cameron GranadinoStudio Production: David HebdenPost-Production: Cameron GranadinoThe Real News is an independent, viewer-supported, radical media network. Help us continue producing Rattling the Bars by following us and becoming a monthly sustainer: Donate: https://therealnews.com/donate-pod-rtbSign up for our newsletter: https://therealnews.com/nl-pod-rtbGet Rattling the Bars updates: https://therealnews.com/up-pod-rtbLike us on Facebook: https://facebook.com/therealnewsFollow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/therealnews

WE GOT US NOW #KeepFamiliesConnected campaign series WELCOME to Season 3 of the WE GOT US NOW Podcast series. For our 5th annual #KeepFamiliesConnected multimedia campaign series that runs from Mother's Day through Father's Day, WE spotlight our community voices, bring awareness to 50 Years of Mass Incarceration in 2023, and uplift our allies working to reform the criminal legal system and create a a just, equitable society that seeks to keep justice-impacted families connected.  ⭐ S3 | EP 4: Rachel E. Barkow ~ Navigating Punishment in America Rachel Barkow is the Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU School of Law. She also serves as the faculty director of the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU. From 2013 to 2019, she served as a member of the United States Sentencing Commission. She is the author of Prisoner of Politics: Breaking the Cycle of Mass Incarceration (Harvard/Belknap, 2019). She has also written more than 30 articles, and she is recognized as one of the country's leading experts on criminal law and policy. Barkow teaches courses in criminal law, administrative law, and constitutional law. In 2013, she was the recipient of the NYU Distinguished Teaching Award. The Law School awarded her its Podell Distinguished Teaching Award in 2007. After graduating from Northwestern University (BA, 1993), Barkow attended Harvard Law School (JD, 1996), where she won the Sears Prize. She served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence H. Silberman on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Justice Antonin Scalia on the US Supreme Court. Barkow was an associate at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans in Washington, DC.  This episode is not to be missed! #WeGotUsNow #10MillionInspired #WellBeing #SocialConnection #Community #RachelBarkow #MassIncarceration #endmassincarceration #ChildrenwithIncarceratedParents #ParentsBehindBars #Family #RankedTop10 #WeGotUsNowPodcast FOR MORE INFORMATION, GO TO www.WEGOTUSNOW.org | Instagram @WE_GOTUSNOW | Twitter: @WE_GOTUSNOW

On this Salcedo Storm Podcast: Dr. John Lott, President of the Crime Prevention Research Center, is an economist and a world recognized expert on guns and crime. He also was the Chief Economist at the United States Sentencing Commission and is well known for his book "More Guns, Less Crime".

On April 5, 2023, the United States Sentencing Commission voted to make several substantive changes to the federal sentencing guidelines.  If approved (or not acted upon) by Congress, some of the most significant amendments in recent memory will go into effect on Nov. 1, 2023.   These changes will effect anyone currently pending sentencing in federal court, and anyone currently serving a sentence in the federal Bureau of Prisons.   In this episode, we are joined by my genious pal, Mark Allenbaugh, to give you the scoop on the two biggest amendments, and talk about a couple of others, including the one that didn't pass:  the big white whale that is acquitted conduct (see Ep. 36, with Mark Allenbaugh and Prof. Doug Berman). IN THIS EPISODE:  USSG amendment to allow for 2 level reduction for having no criminal history and reducing impact of “status” points for criminal history (point assessment for being on probation, parole or supervised release) when committing a new offense; Amendment expanding the criteria/eligibility for Compassionate Release; Commission punting on acquitted conduct and predictions about what the Supreme Court might do with this issue; What you can do RIGHT now to make use of these changes, even though they do not go into effect until Nov. 1, 2023; What you can do to ensure the contested compassionate release provisions do not get vetoed by Congress. LINKS AND OTHER INFO:  Ep. 36:  Acquitted conduct episode:  PRESUMED GUILTY: Using Acquitted, Dismissed, and Uncharged Conduct to Increase Sentences. - Doug Passon Law The Sentencing Commission's detailed report on all amendments:  https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/reader-friendly-amendments/20230405_prelim-RF.pdf 18 USC § 3661 (Referred to by Allenbaugh during this episode): No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence. Proof that the BOP is inept at handling Covid: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/capstone-review-federal-bureau-prisons-response-coronavirus-disease-2019-pandemic WRITING YOUR CONGRESS-PEOPLE IN SUPPORT OF COMPASSIONATE RELEASE AMENDMENTS: We mentioned that the CR amendments was the only one passed without unanimous consent. It was split on party lines (4 Dems in favor, 3 Repubs opposed).  Therefore, it would be useful for you to reach out to your Senate/House members to voice your support for the changes. You could also reach out to some criminal justice-friendly congresspeople as well (see below for a few suggestions).  Here is some suggested language for your email or calls: Dear ___ I am writing to voice my support for the United States Sentencing Commission's recent amendments to the Compassionate Release Guidlines.  I believe in second chances for those who deserve it.  I believe that prison has diminishing returns.  I believe that every human is capable of redemption.  I believe that changes in the law and other new factors warrant a second look at sentencings that are often too long.  I know this amendment may be objectionable to some, but it's hard to understand why.  The First Step Act was legislation passed during the Trump Adminstration with overwhelming BI-PARTISAN support.  The Compassionate Release amendments, merely implement the policies expressed in the First Step Act. I hope you continue to lend your bi-partisan support to this much needed criminal justice reform. Sincerely (Jane Q. Voter in your District)   Here are some CJ-friendly congress-folk: COREY BOOKER: https://www.booker.senate.gov/contact/write-to-cory JAN SHAKOWSKY: https://schakowsky.house.gov/zip_authentication?form=/contact/email-me JOEL OSSOF:  https://www.ossoff.senate.gov/contact-us/message/ DICK DURBIN: https://www.ossoff.senate.gov/contact-us/message/ CORI BUSH:  https://bush.house.gov/contact/email-me -------------- Last, but not least, WTF is "OLD EBBIT"??????? I have a confession to make.  I had no fuckin' idea what Allenbaugh was talking about when he twice mentioned the “Old Ebbit”.  I was too ashamed to expose my ignorance, and so I had to do some googlin'.   Old Ebbitt Grill | Washington, DC Restaurant & Bar  

The Silicon Valley Bank Bailout On March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank failed, being the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history. The U.S. government then took extraordinary steps to stop the potential banking crisis, assuring all depositors that they could access all their money quickly, even as another major bank was shut down. Vec and Mark discuss the bailout at Silicon Valley Bank. NCLA Comment Encourages Sentencing Commission to Alleviate Harms Inflicted by Judicial Deference NCLA has filed a Comment partially supporting the United States Sentencing Commission's proposed amendments to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The amendments would address circuit conflicts that have emerged regarding two inchoate offenses. NCLA sees the amendments as a first step to alleviating harm that Stinson deference inflicts. Still, federal judges must stop deferring to Guidelines commentary, because unlike the Guidelines themselves, the Commission's commentary never receives an up-or-down vote from Congress. NCLA Litigation Counsel Kara Rollins joins to talk through NCLA's recent Comment filed with the U.S. Sentencing Commission.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation, or FAR, is the primary guidance followed by federal agencies—including NASA, the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and all others when acquiring goods and services. It's also a regulation with its own set of compliance requirements for government contractors. How does FAR differ from other regulatory guidance, and what do government contractors need to know to ensure they have an effective program in place? On the Principled Podcast, host Jen Üner talks with LRN colleague Eric Morehead about why the FAR compliance program requirements matter to broader E&C program effectiveness, and how government contractors can implement those requirements in practical ways.    Guest: Eric Morehead Eric Morehead is a member of LRN's Advisory Services team and has over 20 years of experience working with organizations seeking to address compliance issues and build effective compliance and ethics programs. Eric conducts program assessments and examines specific compliance risks, he drafts compliance policies and codes of conduct, works with organizations to build and improve their compliance processes and tools, and provides live training for Boards of Directors, executives, managers, and employees. Eric ran his own consultancy for six years where he advised clients on compliance program enhancements and assisted in creating effective compliance solutions. Eric was formally the Head of Advisory Services for NYSE Governance Services, a leading compliance training organization, where he was responsible for all aspects of NYSE Governance Services' compliance consulting arm. Prior to joining NYSE, Eric was an Assistant General Counsel of the United States Sentencing Commission in Washington, DC. Eric served as the chair of the policy team that amended the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines in 2010. Eric also spent nearly a decade as a litigation attorney in Houston, Texas where he focused on white-collar and regulatory cases and represented clients at trial and before various agencies including SEC, OSHA and CFTC.   Host: Jen Üner Jen Üner is the Strategic Communications Director for LRN, where she captains programs for both internal and external audiences. She has an insatiable curiosity and an overdeveloped sense of right and wrong which she challenges each day through her study of ethics, compliance, and the value of values-based behavior in corporate governance. Prior to joining LRN, Jen led marketing communications for innovative technology companies operating in Europe and the US, and for media and marketplaces in California. She has won recognition for her work in brand development and experiential design, earned placements in leading news publications, and hosted a closing bell ceremony of the NASDAQ in honor of the California fashion industry as founder of the LA Fashion Awards. Jen holds a B.A. degree from Claremont McKenna College.    For a transcript of this podcast, please visit the episode page at LRN.com.

You may know her as a United States District Judge or as the vice chair of the United States Sentencing Commission, but she's mostly known for being the first African American woman on the US Supreme Court! Her name is Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Cindy is here to tell you allll about her on today's episode! Bibliography History.com Editors, “The 1970s,” A&E Television Networks, 13 Jan. 2021, https://www.history.com/topics/1970s/1970s-1#:~:text=The%201970s%20were%20a%20tumultuous,the%20ongoing%20war%20in%20Vietnam. “Kent State Shootings.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings M. Lewis, Jerry, and R. Hensley, Thomas. “The May 4 Shootings At Kent State University: The Search For Historical Accuracy.” Kent State University, https://www.kent.edu/may-4-historical-accuracy. “Ketanji Brown Jackson Fact Sheet.” Alliance for Justice, 30 March 2021, https://www.afj.org/document/judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-fact-sheet/ Biography.com editors, “Ketanji Brown Jackson Biography.” Biography.com, A&E Television Networks, 7 March 2022, https://www.biography.com/law-figure/ketanji-brown-jackson PBS NewsHour. ¨Key Moments from Ketanji Brown Jackson´s Supreme Court Nomination Hearings- Day 3.”Youtube, 24 Mar. 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MirbyMg_ajQ Hunter, Natalie. “Ketanji Brown Jackson's Kids: Meet Her Two Daughters, Talia & Leila Jackson.” Hollywood Life, 7 April 2022, https://hollywoodlife.com/feature/who-are-ketanji-brown-jackson-kids-4683256/ “Ketanji Brown Jackson: Legal Career Timeline.” Southern Poverty Law Center, 7 April 2022, https://www.splcenter.org/news/2022/04/07/ketanji-brown-jackson-legal-career-timeline Sloane, Christine. “Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson: Herstory Made on the Supreme Court.” YMCA USA, 7 April 2022, https://www.ywca.org/blog/2022/04/07/judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-herstory-made-on-the-supreme-court/ Green, Erica L. ¨At Harvard, a Confederate Flag Spurred Ketanji Brown Jackson to Act.” New York Times, 20 March 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/20/us/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-harvard.html C-SPAN. “Complete Remarks from Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson After Being Confirmed to the Supreme Court.” Youtube, 8 April 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKgVNjbaBow. PBS NewsHour. “WATCH: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson On How Her Parents Shaped Her Values.” Youtube, 22 March 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-cQ0GS_Y8w

A suspended sentence is a sentence on conviction for a criminal offense, the serving of which the court orders to be deferred in order to allow the defendant to perform a period of probation. If the defendant does not break the law during that period and fulfills the particular conditions of the probation, the sentence is usually considered fulfilled. If the defendant commits another offense or breaks the terms of probation, the court can order the sentence to be served, in addition to any sentence for the new offense. United States. In the United States, it is common practice for judges to hand down suspended sentences to first-time offenders who have committed a minor crime, and for prosecutors to recommend suspended sentences as part of a plea bargain. They are often given to mitigate the effect of penalties. In some jurisdictions, the criminal record of the guilty party will still carry the offense, even after probation is adequately served. It is important to note about a suspended imposition of a sentence is that it does not completely remove the conviction from a person's record. While it may be hidden from the public, it is not hidden from law enforcement. In other cases, the process of deferred adjudication prevents the conviction from appearing on a person's criminal record, once probation has been completed. In the federal system, judges' authority to suspend sentences has been abolished by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, through the United States Sentencing Commission, and upheld by Mistretta v United States. United Kingdom. A custodial sentence may, at the discretion of the sentencing judge or magistrates, be suspended for up to two years if the term of imprisonment is under two years and the offender agrees to comply with court requirements, which may include a curfew, performing unpaid work, and or engaging in an appropriate rehabilitation programme. In 2017, 5% of convictions resulted in a suspended sentence, compared to 7% immediate custodial sentences. The sentencing guidelines indicate that it is appropriate for a sentence to be suspended if there is strong personal mitigation and or a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, but suspended sentences should not be used for offenders who pose a risk to the public or who have a history of poor compliance with court orders. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

On this Salcedo Storm Podcast:Dr. John Lott, President of the Crime Prevention Research Center, is an economist and a world recognized expert on guns and crime. He also was the Chief Economist at the United States Sentencing Commission and is well known for his book "More Guns, Less Crime.”

Amended Complaint Filed in NCLA Gov't Censorship Lawsuit NCLA, the Attorney General of Missouri, and the Attorney General of Louisiana, have filed a second amended complaint in the lawsuit that exposed scores of federal officials across at least eleven federal agencies secretly communicating with social-media platforms to censor and suppress private speech the government disfavors. 47 new defendants, including officials from the White House, Centers for Disease Control, the FBI and 11 other federal agencies have been added to a lawsuit. Plaintiffs are also seeking to depose many of these top-ranking officials. Vec discusses Missouri v. Biden and the recently filed amended complaint with NCLA Litigation Counsel Jenin Younes. NCLA Amicus Brief Encourages Fifth Cir. to Reject Judicial Deference to Sentencing Commission NCLA has filed an amicus brief in United States v. Vargas, urging the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to decide that Stinson deference should not be applied when it results in a more severe criminal sentence. NCLA argues that existing Fifth Circuit precedent, which the panel was bound to apply in its vacated decision, follows flawed reasoning and causes courts to defer reflexively to United States Sentencing Commission commentary, even when Sentencing Guidelines are unambiguous. Vec discusses Stinson deference and NCLA's amicus brief in U.S. v. Vargas with NCLA Litigation Counsel Kara Rollins.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For the first time in nearly four years, there is a fully staffed, fully functioning United States Sentencing Guidelines Commission.  They have published a list of priorities for the 2022-23 cycle and are soliciting public comments until Oct. 17, 2022.  But many may not realize just how consequentional some of the proposed changes could be.  Therefore, helping us get Set For Sentencing, in an unprecedented double header, our returning champion, Mark Allenbaugh of Sentencingstats.com! IN THIS EPISODE: federal sentencing guidelines overview; The inside scoop on the commission; The need to expand arguments for early release; Congress's role in directing or ratifying guideline amendments; How the guidelines account for past criminal history and proposed amendments to those provisions; Revisiting the Commission's original mandate to avoid custodial sentences when possible for all non-violent offenders; The one sentencing statute (besides 3553) that every federal defendant must invoke as often as possible, How guideline amendments can help fix overcrowding; It's time to stop courts from using acquitted conduct against a client at sentencing; Things not on the Commission's priority list that should be; Last but not least – what can YOU DO to make your voice heard (see link below). LINKS: FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OF PROPOSED 2022-2023 PRIORITIES SUMMARY: As part of its statutory authority and responsibility to analyze sentencing issues, including operation of the federal sentencing guidelines, and in accordance with Rule 5.2 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure, the United States Sentencing Commission is seeking comment on possible policy priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2023. DATES: Public comment should be received by the Commission on or before October 17, 2022. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Commission by electronic mail or regular mail. The email address is pubaffairs@ussc.gov(link sends e-mail). The regular mail address is United States Sentencing Commission, One Columbus Circle, NE, Suite 2 500, South Lobby, Washington, DC 20002 8002, Attention: Public Affairs – Priorities Comment.

What you'll learn in this podcast episode “Thirty years of innovation and influence” is the subtitle of the recent report issued by the United States Sentencing Commission. But what does that really mean in the context of the organizational sentencing guidelines? In this episode of LRN's Principled Podcast, Eric Morehead, LRN Director of Advisory Services Solutions, is joined by one of the report's authors: Kathleen Grilli, the General Counsel for the US Sentencing Commission. Listen in as the two discuss how the commission impacts business leaders and the creation of compliance programs.    Read LRN's takeaways from the report here.  Principled Podcast Show Notes coming soon   Featured guest: Kathleen Grilli Kathleen Cooper Grilli is the General Counsel for the United States Sentencing Commission, having been appointed to the position on October 7, 2013. Ms. Grilli has been on the staff of the Commission since 2003, serving as an assistant general counsel from 2003-2007 and deputy general counsel from 2007-2013. As the General Counsel, Ms. Grill provides legal advice to the Commissioners on sentencing issues and other matters relating to the operation of the Commission. Ms. Grilli is the agency's Ethics Officer and has conducted training on white collar crime and the organizational guidelines at numerous training events.Prior to working for the Sentencing Commission, Ms. Grilli was with the Office of Staff Counsel for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Before relocating to Virginia, Ms. Grilli was a partner in a small firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, handling civil and criminal litigation. Her previous work experience includes serving as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Southern District of Florida and as an associate at Akerman, Senterfitt and Edison, handling commercial litigation. Ms. Grilli is a member of the Bars of Florida and Virginia. She received a Bachelor of Arts in International Relations, with honors, from Florida International University. She graduated cum laude from the University of Miami School of Law.   Featured Host: Eric Morehead Eric Morehead is a member of LRN's Advisory Services team and has over 20 years' experience working with organizations seeking to address compliance issues and build effective compliance and ethics programs. Eric conducts program assessments and examines specific compliance risks, he drafts compliance policies and codes of conduct, works with organizations to build and improve their compliance processes and tools, and provides live training for Boards of Directors, executives, managers and employees.    Eric ran his own consultancy for six years where he advised clients on compliance program enhancements and assisted in creating effective compliance solutions.  Eric was formally the Head of Advisory Services for NYSE Governance Services, a leading compliance training organization, where he was responsible for all aspects of NYSE Governance Services' compliance consulting arm. Prior to joining NYSE, Eric was an Assistant General Counsel of the United States Sentencing Commission in Washington, DC. Eric served as the chair of the policy team that amended the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines in 2010. Eric also spent nearly a decade as a litigation attorney in Houston, Texas where he focused on white-collar and regulatory cases and represented clients at trial and before various agencies including SEC, OSHA and CFTC.     Principled Podcast Transcript Intro: Welcome to the Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership, and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change makers.   Eric Morehead: 30 Years of Innovation and Influence is the subtitle of the recent report issued by the United States Sentencing Commission, but what does that really mean in the context of the organizational sentencing guidelines?   Hello, and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled Podcast. I'm your host today, Eric Morehead, Director of Advisory Service Solutions at LRN. Today, Kathleen Grilli, the General Counsel of the United States Sentencing Commission is joining us. She's one of the authors of this recent report, and we're going to be talking about how the commission impacts business leaders and the creation of compliance programs across the world. Kathleen is a real expert in this space and is a guest of ours last season where we talked about the seven hallmarks of an effective ethics and compliance program enshrined in the US Sentencing Commission's federal sentencing guidelines. Kathleen Grilli, thanks for joining us again on the Principled Podcast.   Kathleen Grilli: Well, thanks for inviting me, Eric. I appreciate it.   Eric Morehead: The commission just released this new report, The Organizational Sentencing Guidelines: 30 Years of Innovation and Influence. Even after more than 30 years, there are still, I think, at least from my perspective, many people who, when they start their career in compliance, are confused a little bit about why the Sentencing Commission is involved in corporate compliance. Can you talk just a little bit about how the US Sentencing Commission came to assume the role it has regarding compliance standards?   Kathleen Grilli: Sure. You say that people in compliance are confused about it, but the truth is, even in the criminal justice arena where the commission operates... Our guidelines are used in federal courts for sentencing organizations and offenders. Even in that arena, there's not really widespread knowledge about Chapter 8 and the hallmarks for an effective compliance and ethics program. That's because there aren't a lot of organizational cases sentenced every year.   But the reason the commission got into the business of corporate compliance has to do with its statutory mission. The commission was created in 1984 through a bipartisan piece of legislation called the Sentencing Reform Act, and that act did a couple of things as it related to sentencing of organizations. It provided that organizations could be sentenced to a term of probation, sentenced by way of a fine, and it required that at least one of those be imposed. This was something new.   It also subjected organizations to orders of criminal forfeiture, meaning the proceeds of the criminal activity could be taken from them, order of notice to victims, and orders of restitution. That act also created the commission, which is a bipartisan agency and tasked the commission with developing guidelines for use in criminal cases for sentencing. It told us what the purposes of sentencing are, which is just punishment, deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation of the offender. The commission had to decide what to do for sentencing of an organization. Obviously, you cannot put an organization in prison. Unlike individual offenders where sentencing ranges in terms of incarceration are something of the norm, you had to figure out what to do to sentence organizations.   With an organization, as we know, the bottom line is they're in business to make money. In developing the organizational guidelines, the commission came up with its notion that it should use fines to incentivize self-policing. It would punish organizations who were not self-policing or not trying to prevent a crime or commit the offense with certain aggravating factors more severely than those who were trying to prevent and detect crime. That's how we got into the business of corporate compliance.   Eric Morehead: Yeah. And it is interesting that the original writ was from the statute that you examine this. Can you talk a little bit about how the commission got specifically to those hallmarks, those programmatic pieces that we talked about a little bit on our last podcast a while ago? What was the process for the commission to get to those standards, those specific compliance pieces of the puzzle, if you will?   Kathleen Grilli: The commission started its work in 1986 on organizational guidelines with a public hearing at which it received testimony from a variety of witnesses across various different wakes of the world: academics, people in business, government agencies, and the like. Over about a five-year period, because as I said, the Commission started its business in 1986 and didn't actually promulgate the organizational guidelines until 1991. During that period of time, there were numerous public hearings attended by a wide range of witnesses from different areas of the law, academics, government agencies, business owners, representatives of just different industries, and the like. The Commission had these hearings, they heard testimony, the Commission went back and developed drafts with proposals for how organizations would be sentenced. They published those drafts. The process of publishing is really a solicitation for public comment, so they got public comment on the drafts. This went on for a good period of time.   In the meantime, the Commission was doing research. We had academics writing proposals and giving us ideas on how to implement the purposes of sentencing, which again, as I said, were just punishment, deterrents, protection of the public, and rehabilitation. Eventually, it came back to how does an organization get in trouble to begin with? An organization doesn't act alone. We have this theory in the law called vicarious liability where an organization is held responsible for the acts of its agents, meaning its employees. If the employees are the bad actors, everyone finally came to the conclusion that the best way to incentivize or prevent corporate crime was for the organization itself to self-police and to direct its employees and talk about what is and is not appropriate. That's how we ended up with compliance standards.   At the time that they started all this work, compliance and ethics was not widely accepted in the industry. There was a little bit of compliance in the context of antitrust and then there was, in the defense industry, there was an initiative relating to that. Those ideas got floated before the commission and it generated a lot of interest. That's how they started developing the standards.   Again, the standards were included in proposed guidelines that were published and they got public comment and not long before the actual vote where they adopted these guidelines. Even folks who were skeptical about whether this was going to work or not thought that the Commission had gotten the hallmarks of a compliance program right. They thought that they made sense and that they gave sufficient guidance to folks on what would and would not work.   Eric Morehead: That's a really important point too, and I often will say this when I'm talking to people and I talk about my background. Full disclosure, I'm a former employee of the US Sentencing Commission, so I have a strong belief in the mission of the organization. But oftentimes, I will say, "Well, they were first," and part of being first is you've tried different things and maybe you don't know exactly what's going to work and what is going to be successful. But I think over time, and this report really homes in on that, this notion that the direction that the Commission took from '86 to '91 really has paid off a lot of benefits.             One of the conclusions, one of the key conclusions from the report is that perhaps one of the biggest wins for the organization over the years is the widespread of adoption of the guidance and, in particular, the standards for what makes an effective compliance program.   I have a two-parter here. Do you think the Commission recognized in '91 how important that might be? And does the Commission today understand the overall importance of the organizational guidelines, and in particular, 8B2.1, those compliance hallmarks? Did they understand it then and what's the understanding of the Commission now of the relative importance of these?   Kathleen Grilli: Well, let me just back up a minute and just say that the commissioners who promulgated the organizational guidelines in 1991 no longer serve on the Commission. Commissioners have term limits. It's a different group then. It was a different group in 2004 that made the changes that brought ethics into the standards for compliance and ethics programs. As we were talking about before we started this podcast, we have a brand new group of seven new commissioners recently nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. You have different folks working on it. I can say that in the process of doing the research for this publication and others that I've worked on in this area, the Commission I don't think ever expected what we see today 30 years later. This widespread influence not only in terms of its use in the criminal justice arena, but how it has impacted other agencies.   And we'll talk about that and the global reach. The Commission itself said, "This is an experiment." They had hopes that it would lead to better actors in the corporate world, but those were hopes and there was a lot of skepticism from the business community when this process was ongoing about whether this was going to work or not. I think we're always blown away when we realize the impact of it, and I say that from a personal point of view, too. Because when I came to the Commission and I've been on the staff for some time, I was not aware of Chapter 8. I had never represented in court an organization, but only individuals.   And the first time I went to a compliance and ethics program where I saw and understood how well received and well regarded and what an impact we had had outside of the criminal justice arena, it sort of blew my mind that I know Judge Murphy and her Commission in 2004 or just before 2004, when they adopted the changes, they learned about it too when they came on board and it sort of blew them away. And I don't know with my current new bosses how well informed they are about this. This is really one of the reasons why, before they came on board, the staff and the then Commission, the one member, Judge Brier wanted to put this report out, memorializing the 30-year anniversary of the organizational guidelines. We're very excited about it, I have to say.   Eric Morehead: No, it is an amazingly effective rubric that the Commission put together and that the Commission is taken a measured approach from my opinion, both in 2004. And then I had an up-close look in 2010 when I was on staff through that process. I think that its impact is pretty incredible 30 years later, looking back.   One of the other things that's incredible... And I talk about new things when you come to the Commission. I had never really paid much attention to sentencing data until I joined the Commission in 2007. And the majority of the actual pages of this report have a lot of really interesting data about the organizations that have been sentenced over 30 years. Some key takeaways include trends that many of us, for those of us who are sentencing nerds, have seen over the years about the impact on small organizations, for example, versus larger organizations, making up the vast majority of defendants in that data set.   To me, a lot of looking for what makes... Because compliance professionals that are listening to this podcast and that are not necessarily interested in sentencing per se, but interested in the sentencing guidelines because of compliance, they're looking for what makes a successful compliance program from sentencing data. To me, a lot of it is what you don't see. It's sort of like looking for... I liken it to looking for a black hole when you're an astronomer. You can kind of tell the telltale characteristics of a black hole existing because of how it affects everything else. And we don't really see organizations that have successful programs in this data. There were just 12 organizations out of those 5,000 or so in 30 years.   Kathleen Grilli: 11.   Eric Morehead: 11. See? I even increased the number. It's just 11 organization out of 5,000 or so, 4,900 and some change, that have ever been deemed to have a successful program. What are some other striking things that you and the team noticed looking over this data and these trends for 30 years?   Kathleen Grilli: Let me just first say what this data is and what it is not so that listeners can understand why they may not find what they're looking for as to what makes a successful compliance program from the data. This data is for organizations, whether it be a corporation, a closely held corporation, partnership, whatever, but organizations that a federal prosecutor has decided to charge and gets convicted of a federal crime. It doesn't include organizations that the prosecutors decide, "Oh, we're going to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement or a non-prosecution agreement." It doesn't include organizations where a regulatory agency has seen that they violated some of the regulations, but they've decided not to proceed against them criminally but to pursue civil adjudications. I mean, in some ways, this data is about the folks that prosecutors decided were the worst of the worst organizations. You don't see what makes a successful compliance program in this data, but I like to say what we do see is that some of the things that the Department of Justice says to you about what they're looking for in deciding whether to prosecute an organization or not might find support in this data. We concluded that the lack of an effective compliance and ethics program might be a contributing factor to criminal prosecutions against organizations. And what specifically led us to that?   Well, in the 30 years that we've been collecting data, overwhelming majority of the organizational offenders in our data set didn't have any program at all, much less an effective program. 89.6%, as you said, as you mentioned and asked me the question, there were only 11 sentences in fiscal year 1992 that got a culpability score reduction for having an effective compliance and ethics program. And I want to stop on those 11 because we went back. Everybody's always interested in what happens with those organizations or why was their program effective? And we were not able to suss a lot of information from the documentation to sort of tell people what it was. There wasn't a lot of descriptive information in the documents we received that would answer that question, but there's only 11 of them. And most of those 11 were very small organizations. It means they didn't have to have a very complex type of program.             More than half, 58.3%, of organizational offenders sentenced under the fine guidelines got a culpability score increase for involvement in or tolerance of criminal activity by upper management would suggest to you. If the management or the substantial authority personnel are in on it, they may well end up sentenced before a federal court. I think that's an important point, too. And very few of these organizations, we'd only saw 1.5% overall that did the three things that get you the maximum reduction off your culpability score, which is self-report, cooperate, and accept responsibility. There were very few organizations, even though there were many that pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility, that actually self-reported. That's important because you hear the Department of Justice talk about why that matters. And this data sort of offers support for the fact that it does.             And then the other thing we saw is that courts are now ordering organizations to implement effective programs in about 20%, one-fifth of the cases that come before them when they impose probation. This was the kind of data that we thought would help fuel the discussion or the debate on the importance of having an effective compliance and ethics program. The other thing you should note about our data, I think it's important too, is that a good percentage of the organizations that have been sentenced over the last 30 years are smaller organizations. It's not large publicly-traded Fortune 500 companies. It's smaller, less number of employees. I think that matters too.   Eric Morehead: That's a trend that I think we've noted in the data, because the size of organizations, the number of employees has been a data point that the commission has released over the years on an annual basis. And by the way, as it's worth mentioning for people who are interested, there'll be a link in the show notes here for this particular report we're talking about. But the Commission puts out data all the time. And at least on an annual basis, there's the Sentencing Commission's Sourcebook on sentencing, which has discussion on organizational cases and includes some of this data. You don't have to wait 30 years to see the trends again. You can keep up with it at the Sentencing Commission website.   Yeah. The small organizations... I think a big surprise to people who have first heard about this because we see the headlines all the time about the Enrons and, I'm going to date myself here, World Comps and Volkswagen and some of the other organizations. Some of those aren't actually even criminal sentences, as you point out. Those are deferred prosecution agreements or civil settlements of some sort, but those are the companies that make the headlines. It's the little guys, small and medium-sized organizations, that take these big hits more frequently than the larger organizations. That, I think, is surprising to people who aren't familiar with the data, but that's a consistent trend throughout the entirety of the enforcement, at least throughout the 30 years that the Commission's been keeping track.   Kathleen Grilli: Yeah. It may change now, given what the Department of Justice said last week.   Eric Morehead: Yeah. You never know. Yeah never know. We'll have to pay attention and then look at the Sourcebook next year and see what the differences are. The other impact beyond our friends at the Department of Justice and the courts throughout the United States is the impact that the Commission and the organizational sentencing guidelines and these standards have had on other enforcement agencies besides the criminal enforcement and also internationally, which I think is very interesting.   Can you talk a little bit... And that's documented in chapter three of this report. The first chapter is talking a little bit about the history. The second chapter is the data that we were just discussing. And then chapter three talks about how the USSC has encouraged other enforcement agencies and regulators to focus on good governance and compliance. Can you discuss a little bit about what the team found when you researched that?   Kathleen Grilli: Yeah. I think that using the word that the USSC has encouraged suggests that there's some sort of active work going on by the Commission. Let me just say that I don't think that is a fair statement. The Commission did its work and let its work speak for itself, and it has sort of spread throughout regulatory agencies and/or the globe just because it makes sense, I think. Anyway, that's my personal opinion. But I made reference to the Department of Justice, and so I'll start with a Department of Justice if I could.   The Attorney General, where it's his designee is an ex-officio member of the Commission, a non-voting member. Obviously, the Attorney General Department of Justice were actively involved in the development of the chapter eight itself and then the subsequent amendments in 2004 and 2010. But you see the impact of the guidelines in their evaluation of corporate compliance programs and all of the information that they release and discuss on how they focus on compliance in deciding how to prosecute an organization.   Just last week, the Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monaco, talked about changes that they're going to make. There was sort of an oblique reference to our data, which is that there's been a drop in corporate prosecutions that we see in the data. I think there were less than a hundred last year, and they talked about sort of reversing that trend and looking at that, that the department thinks this is important. And they've placed a lot of importance recently on compliance programs because she said companies need to actively review their compliance program to ensure that they adequately monitor for and remediate misconduct or it's going to cost them down the line.   Kenneth Polite, who is the... I think it's Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division. He's a former chief compliance officer and they've made a lot of emphasis in the department on active review of programs and true independence for the chief compliance officer. That's the Department of Justice who obviously are actively involved in using the guidelines in federal courthouses, but then you have other regulatory agencies.   I'm going to run through them real quick and just say the SEC, HHS, EPA, FERC, which is Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the FAR all have requirements built into them about compliance programs. And most of them say that they're looking to the guidance on the guidelines. Some of them adopted them full scale, some of them may have modified them a little bit. And all of that came after chapter eight in 1991. All of those agencies look to the guidelines.             And then we see that if you look internationally at what's happening around the world in terms of anti-corruption, anti-bribery, and all the like, that elements of the hallmarks for an effective compliance and ethics program found in the guidelines are making their way into legislation, into programs, into initiatives that foreign governments are releasing. And I can't even keep track of it, truthfully, but it seems to be coming up more and more and more.             When the Commission promulgating the guidelines in 1991, they described them as an experiment. We wanted in this publication to sort of show, did the experiment bear fruit? And I think all of that suggests that it did. These changes and everything that goes back to those original seven steps laid out in the guidelines and elevated in 2004 to give them a little more prominence. It really is very, very exciting. I feel bad. I sound sort of like I'm patting myself on the back, and so I want to make it really clear to the listeners. I was not on this staff in 1991. I wasn't working on this. I did not have anything to do with the 2004 amendments. I came into it after the fact, but it's just really exciting to see it and to see the impact and how well regarded the Commission's work is.   Eric Morehead: No, I think that's right. I think the report really sums up what I think a lot of us have felt. Again, I'm probably biased, but a lot of us have felt this way for a while, that the standards, really, have set the bar and provided kind of a North Star for compliance programs for that whole generation, that whole 30 years. And it's made a difference in millions of people's daily lives in their working lives, because it affects how their company operates for the good or for the bad. And that really makes all the difference to us. I think you guys can successfully pat yourselves on the back a little bit.   Well, last thing, again, knowing that we're talking to a lot of compliance officers who hopefully have, if they're new, have a little bit more appreciation as to why the US Sentencing Commission is involved in their lives, are there other takeaways from the research and work that the team put into this report that you think are particular importance for compliance professionals or things they should be aware of? Kathleen Grilli: Well, one of the things that I hear when I intend conferences and one of the things that I think folks [inaudible 00:26:26] is the fact that there's not enough investment in compliance. The bottom line in business is money and making money, and you can't necessarily provide metrics that show how your work is going to add to the bottom line. Then it's hard to make the case. Now, I know these days, in recent years, folks have come up with ways to measure how compliance and ethics does contribute to the bottom line, and I really believe it does. But this data can offer you the picture of what happens if you don't.   Eric Morehead: Yeah.   Kathleen Grilli: Because since 1992, courts have imposed nearly $33 billion in fines on organizational offenders. The average fine was over $9 million. Although the median was a little lower, it was only $100,000. But for a small mom and pop organization, a hundred grand is a lot of money. And the other thing is that courts will sentence organizations to probation. Over two thirds of the organizational offenders in the last 30 years have been placed on probation with an average term of 39 months, where you're going to have to be reporting to a probation officer and complying with all these requirements. And that's time consuming and costly, too, when you think about it. There's a little bit there that can answer the mail in terms of why am I going to invest in compliance and ethics.   Eric Morehead: I'm a big believer in making the positive business case, but you also need to make the "everybody's going to go to jail" case too.   Kathleen Grilli: Well, especially in light of the recent guidance that the Department of Justice, I mean, where they're going to be looking at individuals and they're going to be requiring organizations to give up all individuals who might be involved, I think that's something that folks should keep in mind as well. It's important because it's not just going to be the company, it's going to be the employees too.   Eric Morehead: Yeah. And again, that's important data. That's in chapter two of this report, that over 50% of the time over the period, you've got at least one living, breathing human being who's also faced charges consistent with the charges that the organizations faced. It includes actual human beings in this process, not just the organization.   Kathleen Grilli: I think we're only going to see an increase if the department's guidance holds true that those numbers may go up.   Eric Morehead: Yeah. We'll have to check. We'll check in next year after the Sourcebook comes out and see if the trend has moved. Kathleen Grilli, it's been a tremendous honor again to have you on our podcast and really appreciate you taking the time.   Kathleen Grilli: Oh, it's an honor for me to be here. Thank you so much for inviting me.   Eric Morehead: No problem. My name is Eric Morehead and I want to thank all of you for tuning in once again to the Principled Podcast by LRN. Outro: We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us lrn.com To learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and don't forget to leave us a review.  

Today's show rundown: It occurred to Chuck, how the Democrats really feel about America. Not the average Democrat voter, Im talking the Elites - Mark says they think the American people are stupid (remember Hillary). Chuck says the Dems in Washington hold up Biden like he is a saint with "all he has accomplished". But he hasn't done anything for the average person, and it is disturbing that these Elitists feel that you just do not matter to them. You don't hear much about the DOJ filing against the State of Georgia. Chuck goes into quoting Game of Thrones..."Chaos if the ladder to power" - clearly some of these characters were Democrats. This is the reason Ben Franklin said those who trade temporary freedom for security shall have neither. The Left wants to make it so chaotic that people will just give up their rights. Pelosi gets up there and acts like she is all in on going to war with Russia. We are introduced to our guest today, and Chuck starts us out with a question about crime - why are people in NYC, Chicago and places like that, why are they tolerating the crime that is going on. John tells us that its just not that risky to be a criminal in these cities right now. With cuts to the Police and lesser punishments for serious crimes, its no big deal to be a violent criminal in these democratic havens. More about John Lott, Jr.: Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. is an economist and a world recognized expert on guns and crime. Lott has held research or teaching positions at various academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Rice University, and was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-1989. He is currently a contributor to The Hill newspaper and a Fox News columnist. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA. Lott is a prolific author for both academic and popular publications. He has published over 100 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals and written nine books, including “More Guns, Less Crime,” “The Bias Against Guns,” and “Freedomnomics.” His most recent books are “Dumbing Down the Courts: How politics keeps the smartest judges off the bench” and “The War on Guns.” Nobel laureate Milton Friedman noted: “John Lott has few equals as a perceptive analyst of controversial public policy issues.” He has been one of the most productive and cited economists in the world (during 1969 to 2000 he ranked 26th worldwide in terms of quality adjusted total academic journal output, 4th in terms of total research output, and 86th in terms of citations). Among economics, business and law professors his research is currently the 28th most downloaded in the world. He is also a frequent writer of op-eds. Connect with John Lott, Jr.: Website: http://crimeresearch.org Twitter: @johnrlottjr & @CrimeResearch1 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CrimeResearchNews/ https://www.amazon.com/Gun-Control-Myths-politicians-botched/dp/B08C95PD1K/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1WMYTHLMI3JUX&keywords=gun+control+myths+john+lott&qid=1664900300&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIxLjYwIiwicXNhIjoiMS4zOSIsInFzcCI6IjEuMDkifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=gun+control+m%2Caps%2C250&sr=8-1

By Adam Turteltaub The Organizational Sentencing Guidelines have turned thirty, and what began as an experiment is now an established framework for compliance programs in the US and around the globe. To commemorate the milestone, the United States Sentencing Commission has published The Organizational Sentencing Guidelines: Thirty Years of Innovation and Influence, which takes a look at the impact of the guidelines and what we have learned about their impact on organizational behavior. In this podcast, the Commission's General Counsel Kathleen Grilli identifies the three largest innovations of the Guidelines: Incentivizing self-policing by organizations Providing guidance on effective ethics and compliance programs Holding organizations accountable based on specific culpability factors when they commit offenses The approach has worked more successfully than had been imagined. As she notes, it has expanded beyond the criminal environment to encompass civil settlements with government agencies as well. In addition, the approach to compliance in the Guidelines has been embraced globally, with their outlines clearly visible in the laws of many nations. Within the US, she shares, a strong difference has emerged between organizations with and without compliance programs. The overwhelming majority of organizations convicted had no compliance program at all. In fact, only 11 out of approximately 5,000 organizations had a program that a court found to be effective. This points out that there is still room for improvement, particularly among smaller organizations who lack awareness of the need for and benefits of compliance programs. Listen in to learn more about the remarkable effectiveness of the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines.

What you'll learn in this podcast episode A few weeks ago, the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) issued a report titled The Organizational Sentencing Guidelines: Thirty Years of Innovation and Influence. The publication summarizes the history of Chapter Eight's development and discusses the two substantive changes made to the elements of an effective compliance and ethics program. So, what does this mean for compliance professionals? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Jen Uner, Strategic Communications Director at LRN, talks about the guidelines with Eric Morehead, Director of Advisory Services at LRN. Listen in as the two discuss how these updates—and the wider USSC—impact corporate governance. The purpose of the U.S. Sentencing Commission is to study and develop sentencing policies for the federal courts. The Commission serves as an information resource for Congress, the executive, the courts, and the public on matters relating to federal crime and sentencing. Our episode today focuses on Chapter 8, which addresses organizational sentencing guidelines, not individual sentencing guidelines which is also a significant focus for the USSC.     Principled Podcast Show Notes [1:24] – Explanation of the new publication from the U.S. Sentencing Commission and why it matters. [6:42] - How the original standards have held up over the last 30 years. [7:51] - Eric outlines some of the highlights of the most recent publication. [12:53] - The real repercussions for organizations. [14:58] - The relationship of the Sentencing Commission with the DOJ and SEC. [18:33] - Steps organizations should take when crafting their own E&C programs. [21:43] - The role of company culture in determining how effective the program will be.   Featured guest: Eric Morehead Eric Morehead is a member of LRN's Advisory Services team and has over 20 years of experience working with organizations seeking to address compliance issues and build effective compliance and ethics programs. Eric conducts program assessments and examines specific compliance risks, he drafts compliance policies and codes of conduct, works with organizations to build and improve their compliance processes and tools, and provides live training for Boards of Directors, executives, managers, and employees. Eric ran his own consultancy for six years where he advised clients on compliance program enhancements and assisted in creating effective compliance solutions. Eric was formally the Head of Advisory Services for NYSE Governance Services, a leading compliance training organization, where he was responsible for all aspects of NYSE Governance Services' compliance consulting arm. Prior to joining NYSE, Eric was an Assistant General Counsel of the United States Sentencing Commission in Washington, DC. Eric served as the chair of the policy team that amended the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines in 2010. Eric also spent nearly a decade as a litigation attorney in Houston, Texas where he focused on white-collar and regulatory cases and represented clients at trial and before various agencies including SEC, OSHA and CFTC.       Featured Host: Jen Üner Jen Üner is the Strategic Communications Director for LRN, where she captains programs for both internal and external audiences. She has an insatiable curiosity and an overdeveloped sense of right and wrong which she challenges each day through her study of ethics, compliance, and the value of values-based behavior in corporate governance. Prior to joining LRN, Jen led marketing communications for innovative technology companies operating in Europe and the US, and for media and marketplaces in California. She has won recognition for her work in brand development and experiential design, earned placements in leading news publications, and hosted a closing bell ceremony of the NASDAQ in honor of the California fashion industry as founder of the LA Fashion Awards. Jen holds a B.A. degree from Claremont McKenna College.        Principled Podcast Transcript Intro:   Welcome to the Principled Podcast brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership, and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change makers. Jen Uner: A few weeks ago, the United States Sentencing Commission issued a report titled The Organizational Sentencing Guidelines: 30 Years of Innovation and Influence. The publication summarizes the history of Chapter Eight's development and discusses the two substantive changes made to the elements of an effective compliance and ethics program. Hello, and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled Podcast. I'm your host, Jen Uner, strategic communications director at LRN, and today, I'm joined by my colleague, Eric Morehead, director of advisory services solutions at LRN. We're going to be talking about the guidelines, and how it impacts corporate governance and what compliance professionals need to know. Eric Morehead is a real expert in the space as he once worked on these guidelines in a prior role at the US Sentencing Commission. He advises LRN clients now on these topics. Eric, thank you for coming on the Principled Podcast. Eric Morehead: Thanks, Jen. It's good to be here. Jen Uner: So hot off the press is this new publication from the US Sentencing Commission. Tell us about what it is, why it matters, and especially to owners of compliance programs at their organizations. Eric Morehead: Well, it's sort of a look back over the last 30 years. The Sentencing Guidelines for organizations were first promulgated and came into effect in 1991, so technically the 30th anniversary was last year, but the report has just come out now, and over those 30 years, there's been about 5,000 organizations that have been sentenced under the US Sentencing Guidelines. The Sentencing Commission and the Sentencing Guidelines have to do with federal sentencing, so either individuals or organizations who have been charged with a federal offense and find themselves in a federal district court, somewhere in the United States, and they either have pled guilty, or been found guilty by a jury, or found guilty by a judge after a bench trial, and now they're being sentenced. So when you sentence an individual, obviously, that can include a fine in restitution, but also time in a federal penitentiary. You can't jail an organization, but the Organizational Guidelines have put together over the last 30 years standards by which the judge can assess fines, restitution, and also order when necessary compliance reforms and implementation. Since you can't put the organization behind bars, you can however, put the organization on probation and require the organization to make some necessary reforms, if you will. So that's a kind of quick background of what the guidelines are for those of you who weren't sure, and why they matter to us, because the implementation of compliance standards is baked into any kind of probationary sentence or sentence that's handed down to an organization, or can be baked into, I should say. Jen Uner: And you have personal experience at the USSC. Eric Morehead: Yes, I worked at the Sentencing Commission from about 2007 to 2011, and during that period, there have been two amendments to the original guidelines that were first put out in 1991 for organizations. The first was in 2004, partly in response to Sarbanes-Oxley and the legislation that came out at that point around implementing reforms for organizations and their governance, but also there was back at the time in the early 2000s, a task force put together that the Sentencing Commission took some advice from. And so they made some amendments in 2004. The primary thing that happened in 2004 is that these compliance standards that are in the Sentencing Guidelines were put more front and center. They had been what are called application notes before, and they were actually promoted, if you will, to an actual textual listing in the guidelines. Just making them more prominent is really what it boiled down to. Also, putting a little further definition around the components of an effective program, training, governance and oversight, written standards, and procedures in place, reporting mechanisms, that we all know most organizations have an anonymous reporting mechanism, a hotline or helpline out there. That comes out of these standards that were first put together by the US Sentencing Commission. They were the first national standard in the United States anyway that suggested having a reporting mechanism, including with an anonymous option. Enforcement, discipline, and incentives often overlooked, but the Sentencing Guidelines have been talking about incentives for the past couple decades as well. And then in 2010 while I was there, the second amendment to the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines was undertaken, and that also strengthened that relationship between the governing authority of the organization, the board of directors, or whatever the oversight of a particular organization might be, because these guidelines affect not just public companies, but any kind of organization, so nonprofits, governmental agencies. Any kind of organizational structure is contemplated by the guidelines, and the 2010 amendments strengthened that relationship between the people actually responsible for the program and the governing authority of the organization, and also provided some incentives for organizations to come forward and to reform their programs. So those things have all happened over the years. Given the length of time that the Sentencing Guidelines have been in effect, now 30 years plus, to only have gone back and revisited them twice is not that significant. So they've been kind of bedrock standards that have existed and been well known. We often talk about them as the hallmarks of an effective program for this entire time, and the commission gathers data, and so the other big piece of this report that's very interesting is there's 30 years worth of data. And in fact, the majority of the report goes through in much detail about the demographic characteristics of organizations that have been sentenced over the years, how many organizations have received credit for having an effective program. Spoiler alert, not very many out of the 5,000, less than a dozen. So that's the other great thing about this report for those of us who are interested in compliance is you have a great wealth of data to see what the characteristics are, and how organizations have gotten into real serious trouble in the past. Jen Uner: So you were saying there have only been two amendments since inception? Eric Morehead: Yes. Jen Uner: That's pretty interesting, because it kind of speaks to how enduring. Eric Morehead: Yeah, they got it right, and the primary takeaway in this report in the executive summary in the beginning is that the biggest impact that the commission sees for its work is that these standards have become so universally accepted, and that's not just in the United States. That's across the world. These standards are seen to be when you're talking about effective compliance programs, they're seen to be sort of the bedrock, if you will. There are obviously other international standards out there in Europe, and Asia, and other places where government agencies and international agencies like the OECD Good Guidance that came out well over two decades ago itself. They all kind of trend and follow the same path, if you will, that the Sentencing Guidelines started 30 years ago. So it really has been the guiding light for not just individual organizations that want to build a better program, but also other regulators out there, whether that's the Department of Justice, or other agencies here in the United States, or international organizations that are adopting compliance standards. Jen Uner: So the most recent publication, it provides great historical context about the commission and its impact. Can you outline some of those highlights? I remember that the report is chock full of charts, data, as you were saying, which is great if you're needing to report about program effectiveness, for example. What do you think is most salient for leaders in that report? Eric Morehead: Yeah, as far as those particular pieces of data, nothing here if you've been paying attention to the sentencing guideline data over the years, and every year, I should mention that the Sentencing Commission puts out what they call the Sentencing Source Book, and that has a lot of data about not only individual's sentencing, which is the primary thing that the Sentencing Commission collects data on is the actual, real living human beings that are being sentenced year in, year out in federal courts around the nation, but it also includes data on the organizations that have been sentenced in that prior year. So if you've been paying attention over the years and looking at these source books, you will have noted that pretty much year in, year out, the vast majority of organizations that are sentenced, 70% of them have less than 50 employees, and 12.1% have 99 to 400 employees. And just a very small percentage, 8%, have more than 500 employees. So the vast majority of organizations that get sentenced are very small, but if you think about it, that makes logical sense, because smaller organizations tend to have less governance structure, probably have less resources, probably don't have a compliance program, and that's certainly the finding that courts when they review these cases 89.6% of the time, so almost 90% of the time organizations have been found not to have a program in place, or what was in place was not significant enough to be considered a compliance program. So those two figures seem to correlate well, right? The organizations that face the most serious repercussions are small and also don't have a program, so probably hadn't even contemplated having a program before misconduct occurred. The other real striking piece of information that comes out of this report and is also something that's been consistent through the years is the number of actual living human beings that are being sentenced along with the organizations in these cases. When we look at these cases, often we're talking about the demographics of the company, how many employees they have, what sort of crimes they have been found guilty of, how big the fines are, et cetera, but sometimes what gets lost in that discussion is the fact that if there's misconduct that's occurred, very often, there are individuals who are charged right along with the company for violations of the law. And in fact, over time, 53% of these cases include at least one other individual, and sometimes multiple individuals, who've also been charged with crime. The other really striking piece of data out of this that I think a lot of people don't realize is the vast majority of individuals who are charged are not considered "high level", so these are folks that have some authority to engage in whatever behavior underlies the conduct that led to a criminal offense. So they probably are not at the very lowest level of the organization most of the time, but they are not necessarily in the C-suite. Only 25.7% of the individuals charged with an offense along with an organization were considered high level. So almost three quarters of those individuals who find themselves facing criminal sanction, potentially going off to the federal penitentiary are folks that are not considered high level in their organization, and I think that is perhaps counterintuitive, because we oftentimes hear the headlines of executives and other senior folks in organizations getting in trouble and facing criminal sanction, but the reality is the opposite of that. Jen Uner: That's kind of scary, I got to say. I mean, it makes me as an individual in the company really want to pay attention to my compliance training. Eric Morehead: Certainly. Anytime an organization... And granted these cases are not as numerous as situations where organizations may have an investigation and might settle with either the Department of Justice or an agency, like have a civil settlement, something short of a criminal conviction, and there are a lot of situations where organizations might receive a subpoena or have some sort of investigation that occurs, that just ends without any kind of charges or settlements being attained. So there's a lot of data that we don't have, right? Where things may not go perfectly, but don't go quite as bad as ending up with a criminal conviction, but it is scary to consider that there are individuals that are being charged right along with these organizations for this misconduct. Jen Uner: It's really interesting, because so often inside organizations, you've got pressure on one side to perform or deliver in a certain way, and then you can find maybe shortcuts. I mean, I don't know how else to describe it, but a quicker way to get there that maybe is potentially outside the law. So it's true that there are real repercussions for taking those shortcuts, and also for not speaking up, if you see something. Eric Morehead: Yeah, and the real repercussions here for organizations, again, you can't jail a company. You can only fine them. You can order restitution. A federal judge can order them to implement compliance reforms, put together a program if they don't have a program. Those are all things they can do, but the other thing to consider here too is if you take a federal felony conviction, and you are an organization that does any amount of work with the federal government, you can be debarred from future federal contracting, so that can very often... Taking a federal conviction beyond the fines and the costs associated with having to defend the organization against those charges, if it actually ends up with a conviction, and your organization relies heavily or primarily on government contracting, that's the end of the organization. I mean that's the death penalty. The best example of that that we all can probably remember is Arthur Andersen. When they took the federal conviction in Houston for conduct involving Enron, that was the end of Arthur Andersen. They could no longer audit public companies, and they were debarred from government contracting, obviously, after that point too, and that was just the death sentence. Oftentimes when we're looking at these cases, when we look at the data, those are organizations that just had no options, because if there were any options before that to settle the case, to make reforms, to have some sort of civil settlement, those on-ramps just weren't available to them. Jen Uner: I do remember that whole upheaval. My father was in accounting at I think Ernst & Young at the time. I can't even remember, but I do remember that massive upheaval for Arthur Andersen, and how they had to completely pivot the entire business. Eric Morehead: Yeah. The consequences reputational and lost opportunity, real bottom line business costs involved in having misconduct, even if it doesn't rise to the level where we're talking about Sentencing Guidelines or having to implement Sentencing Guidelines for the organization, just an investigation can really derail an organization in a significant way. Jen Uner: I'm going to ask kind of a uninformed question now. It's because I'm not a lawyer. This is going to be maybe really obvious for others, but in case you're like me, can you describe what the Sentencing Commission's relationship is with the DOJ and the SEC, and how do these organizations sort of interrelate? We so often hear about DOJ guidance, for example. How is that different from Sentencing Commission? Eric Morehead: Over the years, we've seen more and more guidance both here in the United States and abroad from prosecuting entities like the DOJ, but also other regulatory agencies like SEC, and many of these regulatory organizations have compliance standards they put together. As far as I'm aware, they're pretty universally based on the same basic standards that we talk about in the Sentencing Guidelines. The DOJ guidance, and primarily we're talking about the memoranda that the criminal division has put out periodically since I think 2017 with the most recent iteration being the 2020 summer one, I believe, that guidance is based and explicitly cites the Sentencing Guidelines as its fundamental basis. Now, obviously there's a lot more detail and specificity within the DOJ guidance. The difference between guidance from the Department of Justice, other guidance that you might see in other agencies, but particularly the memoranda that we're talking about from the DOJ, is that can be withdrawn at any time, and as we've seen over the past few years, it can be amended at any time. It's only a few years old, and it's been amended twice. The DOJ, if there's a change of administration or a change within the hierarchy of the criminal division, those new officials that come in may want to make a change. The former deputy attorney general in the prior administration had talked about doing away with memoranda from the department altogether and codifying everything in as much as you can codify it in the US Attorney's Manual. So there are various things that could potentially happen at any time.           Because the US Sentencing Commission is a rule making organization, there's a whole process that the commission has to go through before there are changes made to the Sentencing Guidelines. That's one of the reasons why there have been very few amendments to the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines over the years is because there's a whole process involved. The commission first has to publicly publish its intention to make any changes. It'll often, if there are proposals to make changes, it will seek public comment, often have a public hearing, and then it votes. And once a commission votes, if a new amendment is promulgated, then it's sent to Congress to both the House and the Senate, and they have a period of time to either make changes or not allow those guideline amendments to come into effect, but if they don't do anything, they automatically come into effect and basically have the force of law as the Sentencing Guidelines. Now, granted the Sentencing Guidelines don't officially apply to your organization except when you're in front of a federal judge being sentenced, right? So if there's no sentence, there's no criminal offense where the sentence is being determined, the guidelines don't have any official capacity, but we've all taken them as the standards by which we measure the effectiveness of a program. So I guess what I'm saying here is I think any guidance is helpful guidance. Certainly the DOJ guidance has been very helpful and added more detail into what regulators are looking for when they peer into an organization, but just the sort of bread and butter basic pieces of a compliance program are always going to reflect back to those seven hallmarks of an effective program within the Sentencing Guidelines, because they're pretty immutable. Jen Uner: So if you're building an E&C program, what are the steps that organizations should be taking to lower their risk? Can you go into a little bit more detail on that? How do you unearth all the rules that apply, and how can you effectively transmit them to the people in your organization? Eric Morehead: Yeah. Whether you're using the Sentencing Guidelines, looking at the guidance from the Department of Justice, or guidance from international organizations like the OECD or others, I feel like, and this is backed up by the specific guidance that the department has given over the past few years of what they look for, every organization is unique. It's its own unique snowflake, right? And so you're going to have your own unique risk profile, and you're going to have to develop your own unique compliance program to be an effective control for those risks. So you evaluate all of these standards, but you put together a program, and you put together standards that really address what your program needs. One of the key provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines, by the way, is what I would call the not one size fits all provision. The guidelines from the very beginning stages of when they were developed had this notion that not every program is going to look the same, not every program is going to be as extensive as other programs. Smaller organizations that are purely domestic here in the United States, for example, and maybe are smaller probably don't have the same exposure to anti-corruption concerns, for example, foreign bribery anti-corruption concerns that international organizations might have for just as an example. So really the best advice is to make sure that your program meets your needs, and so the first step along that process is evaluating and figuring out what your needs are. What are compliance risks that your organization faces, and how are you addressing those risks, and do you need to reform those controls, put more resources behind training or monitoring and auditing, or whatever it might be to address those particular risks? So it's really an investigation of what you face as an organization, what are the risks you face, looking at all these standards, reading the guidance from the department, reading specific guidance that might apply to your organizations, for example, if there are particular compliance requirements. If you're a government contractor, you have to have a written code of conduct. You have to post certain reporting materials if you're a government contractor. So there are some particularized compliance requirements, depending on who you are, and how your business is operating, and you have to be aware of all those standards, but you develop a program that fits your organization, that is very specific and customized to the risks you face, the resources you have to use, because not everybody has the same resources. So you have to make some tough calls sometimes as a compliance officer or the person responsible for compliance at an organization, because you may not be able to do all the things you really want to do, but you have to figure out and prioritize the things you need to do. Jen Uner: Which makes me think about corporate culture, right? Because every company's culture is also unique and completely attuned to its own size and position of the marketplace, and where it trades, and who it does business with, and all of those pieces. Eric Morehead: Yeah, the ethics side of compliance and ethics is the determining factor very often, right? The culture of the organization really tell the tale as to how effective or ineffective ultimately you're going to be. You may need more controls. You may have some potential risks that need to be addressed. Even if you have a super strong culture, you can't just get by on culture alone, because organizations are made up of a lot of individuals, and some of those individuals may have bad intent, but it's hard to imagine how you could properly resource an organization that had a poisonous culture, right? If you don't have values, if you don't have an effective ethical framework that everybody is primarily operating under, you can pour money onto systems, controls, tools, and it may not make any difference whatsoever. You can have a compliance budget that is the top budget out there, but if the culture is ruined or ruinous, then it's going to be really hard to have an effective program. Jen Uner: Yeah. I think they famously have said, "Culture eats strategy for breakfast." Eric Morehead: Yeah, and that's really true. I've seen different ends of the spectrum, right? I've seen organizations where the culture was hard to know how you would start to climb back up that hill and reform the culture, and how you would be able to have an effective program without having a positive, ethical culture, but I've also seen the other end too, which is less frequent, but also potentially problematic, where organizations... And sometimes I see this, for example, a good example of this would be a nonprofit where mission is really important, and everybody has a very ethical outlook, and they wouldn't be working at a nonprofit and particularly in difficult circumstances unless they really were all about the mission and had a very positive, ethical attitude, but they don't have a lot of structure. They don't have a lot of resources. And so there's always the potential that there could be failures and misconduct, because for instance, they might be a good target for an outside data privacy issue, right? Because they don't have strong data security systems. Jen Uner: I was just going to say data privacy. Eric Morehead: So you can be at both ends of the spectrum as far as that culture piece goes, and still have some serious compliance risks. Jen Uner: So there's definitely always a need for E&C training for sure. Eric Morehead: Yeah, training in Sentencing Guidelines, and the guidance from the Department of Justice, both are really clear about we are not interested in one size fits all. We are not interested in how big your budget is. We just want to make sure your budget is right, that the governing authority and the organization has addressed this properly and is serious about compliance, but if you're a smaller organization or an organization where the risks are being properly addressed without spending a lot of money, that can be perfectly fine. Again, depends on the individual organization, and what is their risk profile, how are they addressing those risks, and are they meeting the other big picture criteria of having some standards that everybody knows about, training where appropriate, having proper governance and oversight, and monitoring and auditing, having a reporting process, where people can ask questions and report concerns, properly enforcing the rules, and disciplining people, and having incentives. And that's the one that often gets missed. That's been in the Sentencing Guidelines for years now, and has is mentioned in the guidance. How do you incentivize proper behavior at your organization? That's really important too. Jen Uner: There is so much that goes into building an effective E&C program. I'm sure we could be talking about this all day, but we are running out of time. I am so glad you could join me today to talk about this report and why it matters to every organization. I know we'll be including a link to that report in our show notes at LRN.com. My name is Jen Uner. I want to thank you, Eric, for joining me today. Eric Morehead: Thanks, Jen. It was my pleasure to be here. Jen Uner: And I want to thank everyone for listening to the Principled Podcast by LRN. Outro: We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at LRN.com to learn more, and if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and don't forget to leave us a review.  

Hey Identifier, Ketanji Brown Jackson (born Ketanji Onyika Brown; /kəˈtɑːndʒi/ kə-TAHN-jee; September 14, 1970)[2] is an American attorney and jurist who has served as a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since 2021.[3] She is a current nominee for the Supreme Court, awaiting Senate confirmation. Born in Washington, D.C., and raised in Miami, Florida, Jackson attended Harvard University for college and law school, where she served as an editor on the Harvard Law Review. She began her legal career with three clerkships, including one with U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer. Prior to her elevation to an appellate court, from 2013 to 2021, she served as a district judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Jackson was also vice-chair of the United States Sentencing Commission from 2010 to 2014.[4] Since 2016, she has been a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers. On February 25, 2022, President Joe Biden nominated Jackson to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, filling the vacancy created by Breyer's retirement.[5] If confirmed, Jackson would be the first black woman to sit on the Supreme Court.[6] She would also be the first Supreme Court justice to have served as a public defender.[7] #ketanjiBrownJackson #blackwoman #judge Leave us a Voice Mail or Support https://anchor.fm/the-identity-booth/message https://anchor.fm/the-identity-booth/support Sub to the channel here https://www.twitch.tv/theidentitybooth Donate https://streamlabs.com/projecteto/tip The Goal: Try to Identify with you as you try to Identify with me. Find Heero here: https://linktr.ee/the_identity_Booth Take Care --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/the-identity-booth/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/the-identity-booth/support

In the past two months, President Joe Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of The United States of America. She is currently participating in her confirmation hearings to await confirmation vote from the whole U.S. Senate for her to officially become a United States Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. To put this in perspective, if confirmed by the Senate she would be the first ever ever black woman to be a Justice on the Supreme Court. Ketanji Brown Jackson has served as a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since confirmed in 2021. However, she also was vice chair of the United States Sentencing Commission from 2010 to 2014. Brown Jackson has many other judicial and law positions on her long resume. She is very qualified to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. She has a very indeed measured and diverse background and experience. She would be replacing retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer; who she clerked for from 1999 to 2000. All this and more analyzed and answered in this podcast episode. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/nrodyunknown/message

3 NCLA Supports Cert Petition in Title IX Case As part of its efforts to enforce Title IX, the U.S. Department of Education has routinely pressured schools to deny due process to the accused in sexual-misconduct investigations. NCLA filed an amicus brief in support of Jane Doe's petition for a writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court in her case against the California State University system and various Title IX administrators. Mark discusses Title IX and NCLA's amicus brief in Jane Doe v. Timothy White, et al. 4 Stinson Deference, Fourth Circuit Confusion, and NCLA's Amicus Brief in Moses NCLA recently filed an amicus brief in United States v. Lenair Moses, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to rehear the case en banc and address whether Stinson deference can increase criminal sentences. NCLA argues that the Fourth Circuit panel erred in upholding Lenair Moses's enhanced 10-year sentence under flawed reasoning that the Fourth Circuit should defer reflexively to the commentary of the United States Sentencing Commission, even when the applicable Sentencing Guideline is unambiguous. This panel of the Fourth Circuit's decision to cling to Stinson deference endangers individual liberty, distorts the independent judiciary, and violates due process by institutionalizing judicial bias. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Abstract: Most ethics and compliance professionals have heard of the “seven hallmarks” of an effective E&C program that is enshrined in the U.S. Sentencing Commission's Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Implementing written standards of conduct, policies, and procedures. Designating a compliance officer and compliance committee. Conducting effective training and education. Developing effective lines of communication. Conducting internal monitoring and auditing. Enforcing standards through well-publicized disciplinary guidelines. Responded promptly to problems and undertaking corrective action. But where did these guidelines come from, and who is involved in the process of deciding these standards? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Eric Morehead of LRN's Advisory group talks about the evolving role of the U.S. Sentencing Commission with Kathleen Grilli, the commission's General Counsel. Listen in as the two discuss the history of compliance—going back more than 30 years—and unpack what sentencing data can tell us about E&C today. Read the full Federal Sentencing Guidelines for an effective E&C program.   What You'll Learn on This Episode: [1:19] - The history of the sentencing commission and the different roles of the organization. [2:36] - How did the sentencing commission become such an integral part of corporate compliance? [6:40] - With whom does the sentencing commission consult with to find collaboration when considering revisions to guidelines? [12:35] - The 2004 amendments and incorporating ethics into the criteria for an effective program and examples of how changes to the organizational guidelines can come about. [15:36] - Does public comment have to come from advocacy organizations? [17:01] - Trends seen in organizational data over the years. [21:26] - Potential future changes to the organizational sentencing guidelines.    Featured guest: Kathleen Cooper Grilli is the General Counsel for the United States Sentencing Commission, having been appointed to the position on October 7, 2013. Ms. Grilli has been on the staff of the Commission since 2003, serving as an assistant general counsel from 2003-2007 and deputy general counsel from 2007-2013. As the General Counsel, Ms. Grill provides legal advice to the Commissioners on sentencing issues and other matters relating to the operation of the Commission. Ms. Grilli is the agency's Ethics Officer and has conducted training on white collar crime and the organizational guidelines at numerous training events. Prior to working for the Sentencing Commission, Ms. Grilli was with the Office of Staff Counsel for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Before relocating to Virginia, Ms. Grilli was a partner in a small firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, handling civil and criminal litigation. Her previous work experience includes serving as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Southern District of Florida and as an associate at Akerman, Senterfitt and Edison, handling commercial litigation. Ms. Grilli is a member of the Bars of Florida and Virginia. She received a Bachelor of Arts in International Relations, with honors, from Florida International University. She graduated cum laude from the University of Miami School of Law.   Featured Host:  Eric Morehead is a member of LRN's Advisory Services team and has over 20 years of experience working with organizations seeking to address compliance issues and build effective compliance and ethics programs. Eric conducts program assessments and examines specific compliance risks. He drafts compliance policies and codes of conduct, works with organizations to build and improve their compliance processes and tools, and provides live training for Boards of Directors, executives, managers, and employees. Eric ran his own consultancy for six years where he advised clients on compliance program enhancements and assisted in creating effective compliance solutions. He was formally the Head of Advisory Services for NYSE Governance Services, a leading compliance training organization, where he was responsible for all aspects of NYSE Governance Services' compliance consulting arm. Prior to joining NYSE, Eric was an Assistant General Counsel of the United States Sentencing Commission in Washington, DC. Eric served as the chair of the policy team that amended the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines in 2010. Eric also spent nearly a decade as a litigation attorney in Houston, Texas where he focused on white-collar and regulatory cases and represented clients at trial and before various agencies including SEC, OSHA and CFTC.   Transcription:  Intro:                                     Welcome to The Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business, and compliance, transformative stories of leadership, and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change-makers. Eric Morehead:                 Why is the US Sentencing Commission involved in compliance and ethics? It's a question that both new compliance officers, as well as seasoned professionals, often ask. We've all heard of the seven hallmarks of an effective compliance program that are enshrined in the sentencing guidelines, but where did they come from and who is involved in the process of deciding these standards? Hello, and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled Podcast. I'm your host, Eric Morehead with LRN's advisory services team. And today, I'm joined by Kathleen Grilli, the General Counsel for US Sentencing Commission. We're going to be talking about the Sentencing Commission, discussing a little compliance history going back more than 30 years, covering what the Commission's role is and was, and talking about what sentencing data might tell us about compliance today. Kathleen, thanks for coming on The Principled Podcast. Kathleen Grilli:                   Eric, thanks for inviting me. Eric Morehead:                 Can you tell us a little bit about the history of the Sentencing Commission itself and the different roles of the organization? Kathleen Grilli:                   Certainly. The Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the federal government. It was established in 1984 by a bipartisan act of Congress called the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Congress tasked the Commission with the responsibility of developing federal sentencing policy. So the Commission's principle purposes are to establish sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts, including issuing guidelines regarding the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes, to advise and assist Congress, the federal judiciary, and the executive branch in the development of effective and efficient crime policy, and to collect, analyze, research, and distribute a broad array of information on federal crime and sentencing issues. The Commission effectuates this mission in various ways through the guideline amendment process, our data collection research on the issuance of publications, and by providing training to judges, lawyers, and probation officers on federal sentencing issues. Eric Morehead:                 And historically, why and how is it that this Sentencing Commission became such an integral part of corporate compliance? Kathleen Grilli:                   Well, in 1984, when the Sentencing Reform Act was enacted white-collar crime scandals abounded, and the prevailing view was that corporate crime was a cost of doing business, Congress was concerned about inequities and sentencing and created the Commission to ensure that similarly situated defendants convicted of similar crimes received similar punishments. One of the perceived inequities was that affluent defendants were treated more leniently than indigent defendants. Although the primary focus of the Sentencing Reform Act was individual defendants and not organizational defendants or companies, the Act did make changes to the law that impacted companies. It authorized courts to impose a sentence of probation, or fine, or both on companies, and further permitted companies to be subject to orders of forfeiture notice to victims and restitution orders. The Commission understood these changes to mandate that it developed guidelines for sentencing organizations in addition to developing guidelines for sentencing individual defendants. This was quite controversial at the time and many in the business community openly opposed the Commission as it engaged in the process of developing the organizational guidelines. Back then, as I understand the historical record, there were no professional ethics and compliance officers, no professional organizations focused on ethics and compliance, no professional field of study, no business certifications in the topic. There was at least one voluntary association of defense contractors seeking to promote business ethics, and compliance programs in some form were recognized in the antitrust field but were not a prevalent part of corporate America. So the Commission wanted to find a way to deter corporate crime. Because it arises when an employee or an agent commits a crime while acting within the scope of his employment, the Commission thought that self-policing by corporations was the most effective tool to accomplish the goal of deterring corporate crime. Corporate criminal sanctions are a monetary payment to the court and/or restitution to the victims. Since corporations are in the business of making money, the Commission came to the realization that financial incentives would probably be the best way to incentivize corporations to self-police. The implementation of ethics and compliance programs was an outgrowth of the notion of self-policing. Under the chapter 8 guideline fine provisions, an organization has the ability to significantly reduce its fines by having an effective compliance and ethics program, reporting its crime to authorities, and cooperating with those authorities. The Commission thought that this punishment scheme would promote crime deterrence in this area of the law. Chapter 8 was the product of years of work with input from a wide variety of sources. The Commission started work on it in 1986 and held several public hearings featuring witnesses from federal and state agencies, probation officers, academics, the corporate sector, and special interest groups. After publishing several drafts of the organizational guidelines and about five years' worth of study, the Sentencing Commission received and considered a broad array of public comment, including proposals for incorporating affirmative governance factors into the guidelines. These efforts were informed by staff and outside working groups, and the seven elements for an effective ethics and compliance program grew out of this collaborative process. In addition, the Commission purposely drafted the elements in broad terms so that they could be individually tailored by a vastly different types of organizations to which they would apply. Eric Morehead:                 One of the things that I think comes up when you start talking about the role and the process of the Commission is this collaborative effort you mentioned. And the organizational sentencing guidelines have evolved since that first promulgation back in 1991, now, over 30 years. Can you talk a little more specifically about where the Sentencing Commission looks for that collaboration? Whom does it consult with when considering revisions to, not broadly speaking the guidelines, but maybe more specifically, the organizational sentencing guidelines? Kathleen Grilli:                   Sure, Eric. So I've already briefly described the multi-year pro that led to the creation of chapter 8. I would note that while the Commission has made over 800 amendments to the guideline manual, only two of those in the last 30 years have made substantive changes to chapter 8, where you find the organizational guidelines. The 2004 amendment and the 2010 amendment, both of which changes to the criteria for an effective ethics and compliance program. Each of those changes became part of the Commission's amendment cycle in a different way. So let me just briefly describe how that cycle works. The amendment cycle is annual, it's scheduled around certain deadlines set by Congress in the Sentencing Reform Act, our organic statute. For example, the earliest that the Commission can deliver amendments to Congress is at the start of a congressional session in January. And the latest date for delivery is May the 1st. The Act requires the Commission to comply with a notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, which means the Commission has to publicize proposals for Commission action and receive and consider public input about those proposals. So there are various opportunities for solicitation for public comment throughout the amendment cycle. The cycles typically starts in May or June when the Commission holds a planning session. At that session, they consider written materials that detail the work completed on priorities from the prior year and identifying any work that remained to be completed, and includes possible ideas for Commission action from a variety of outside sources. Correspondence, possibly received from judges and/or other members of the public. If we receive those suggestions outside of common period, what we do is we save them and we deliver them to the Commission during an open common period. We look at case law, particularly focusing on opinions from circuit court of appeals that arrive at conflicting decisions on issues surrounding the guidelines. We look at other scholarly materials that suggest changes to the guidelines. Crime legislation is considered. Our helpline database is looked at to find frequently occurring questions that we receive on guideline issues. And our training staff provides input on questions that they receive while training on the guidelines around the country. Sometimes, individual commissioners receive notes from judges or their other acquaintances containing similar suggestions. And the commissioners themselves often have ideas on policy issues that they want to address an amendment cycle. So they discuss these materials and they decide on a tentative list of priorities for the upcoming amendment cycle. We publish that in The Federal Register and on the Commission's website with a deadline for submission of public comment. And the Commission considers that public comment prior to deciding on its final priorities. Certain organizations send a letter to the Commission every year, like the Department of Justice who provides the executive branch a suggestion, for Commission action, the federal public defenders who represent indigent defendants. They also offer suggestions. The Commission has standing advisory groups that represent specific interest groups. Privately retained criminal defense lawyers, probation officers, victims, and Native American tribes who also submit public comments. And then we have certain advocacy groups that are regular submitters to the Commission. But in any given year, the Commission receives a variety of public comment letters from any number of organized groups and individual members of the public. The Commission reads that, decides on final priorities, votes on that at a public meeting, and then we begin our work. Work on these priorities is assigned to the staff of the Commission, which includes lawyers, social scientists, and training staff. And we assist the Commission in developing a robust administrative record on the issues under consideration. So we review case law, legislation, legislative history, Commission historical documents, and other scholarly or scientific literature. We also conduct data analysis using the sentencing data regularly compiled by the Commission. We meet with interested stakeholders to obtain additional information designed to inform the Commission's policy discussion. The staff working groups or the teams report their findings to the Commission in written materials and in oral presentations at the Commission's regular monthly business meetings. Ultimately, these teams develop proposed guideline amendments for the Commissioner's consideration. Draft amendments are published in The Federal Register for a 60-day comment period after the Commission votes to publish those amendments at a public meeting. Those are usually held in December, January. And during the public common period, the Commission holds at least one public hearing, which invited witnesses testify on the policy changes under consideration. After the hearing and review of all public comments, the Commission votes to promulgate amendments at a public meeting in April. The Commission delivers those amendments to Congress no later than May the 1st, at which point Congress has 180 days to review the amendments. Unless Congress enacts legislation, affirmatively disapproving the amendments, the guidelines automatically take effect at the end of the 180-day review period. So the 2004 amendment initially grew out of comments made to a group of seven new commissioners who were appointed in 1999. And they began hearing from these commenters that the organizational sentencing guidelines had been successful in inducing many organizations, both and indirectly, to focus on compliance and to create programs to prevent and detect violations of the law. But these commenters also suggested that changes could and should be made to chapter 8, to give organizations greater guidance regarding the factors that are likely to result in effective programs. Among other things, the Commission was urged to expressly incorporate ethics into the criteria for an effective program. In light of this feedback, the Commission decided to create an ad hoc advisory group to examine the issue and develop proposals for its consideration. Among the members of that group were the current Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Mike Horowitz, the former Attorney General, Eric Holder, and many ethics and compliance professionals from both small and large organizations. Not long after the formation of that group, Congress enacted the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, which directed the Commission to examine penalties for organizations. So the ad hoc groups work tied in very nicely to help the Commission respond to that directive. The ad hoc group did its due diligence, reviewing literature, public comment, soliciting feedback, conducting a hearing. And its work resulted in a draft proposal for changes to chapter 8 for the Commission to consider. The Commission then went through the regular amendment cycle that I just described to you, which resulted in the 2004 changes. As you well know, Eric, since you were at the Commission in 2010 and worked on this policy issue, that amendment grew out of the Commission's catch-all priority for the miscellaneous guideline amendment issues. Then Commissioner, now Chief Judge for the United States District Court in DC, Beryl Howell, believed that chapter eight could be approved upon. And she was able to convince her colleagues to consider this issue. Because the Commission believed that the issue would be very important to the ethics and compliance community, the Commission, through its staff, Eric, made concerted efforts to bring the matter under consideration to the attention of the actors in that community, soliciting comment, and inviting witnesses from the ethics and compliance community to testify at a public hearing. I must say, I have been on the staff of the Commission for 18 plus years, and that was the only hearing at which a miscellaneous amendment garnered two panels of witnesses at a hearing and more public comment than any other amendment under consideration during the amendment cycle. So that's a different example of how changes to the organizational guidelines can come about. Eric Morehead:                 And just to clarify one thing, you talked about advocacy groups, and earlier on mentioned that with the original promulgation in 1991, the Defense Initiative was involved. But does public comment have to come from advocacy organizations? Can it come from anyone? Kathleen Grilli:                   Public comment can come from anyone, and it can come in any form. Folks can email it to our Public Affairs Office. They can send a letter to a Commissioner saying, "Commissioner, I think you need to make this change to the guidelines." They can send it to a member of staff and we compile it, and keep it, and present it to the Commission, no matter who it comes from. In the past, in some of our other guideline amendments, the Commission has received and considered a huge amount of public comment that came from individuals out in the community who were not necessarily active at all in the criminal justice arena. Eric Morehead:                 Yeah. And I think that's an important point as that this process is very well documented and transparent. We see guidance on compliance coming from other regulators out there, but the process that goes on at the Sentencing Commission is something that really is public-focused. And I think that's an important distinction. One of the other key components of the Commission that you mentioned when you were talking about the role is data gathering, and that's gathering data on all the individuals and organizations who have either pled guilty, or been found guilty, and are now being sentenced in front of a federal court. What are some of the trends that we see when we look at organizational sentencing data over the years? Kathleen Grilli:                   Well, I'm glad you asked me about trends, Eric, because one of the things that we're working on right now is a publication to sort of commemorate the 30th anniversary of the organizational guidelines. And we're actually going to be taking a deeper dive into looking at trends. Because normally, when we report out data on the organizational guidelines, it's on an annual basis using our fiscal year data. Well, let me give you some information about a couple of things that I do know about. And I have seen in the years that I've been working on this. First of all, in the 30 years since the adoption of the organizational guidelines, only 11 organizations have received a culpability score reduction for having an effective ethics and compliance program. I view this as a very positive statistic because the Department of Justice tells the business world that it considers ethics and compliance program when evaluating whether to prosecute an organization criminally. Now, I know that there are other ways that organizations get sanctioned by regulatory authorities. Civil fines, non-prosecution agreements, and deferred prosecution agreements. But the bottom line is that Commission data reflects that very few organizations with an effective ethics and compliance program have been prosecuted and criminally sentenced. And I think that's a very big deal. I can tell you that the majority of organizations sentenced in recent years have fewer than 50 employees. And as I mentioned, the publication will be able to report whether that trend holds true over the almost three decades that we've been collecting data on organizational offenders.                                                In the last 20 years, we've seen a steady increase in the percentage of cases in which courts have ordered the development of an ethics and compliance program as a condition of probation. In FY 2000, only 14% of cases involve such a condition compared to nearly that 27% in FY 2020, our fiscal year. Likewise, we have observed an increase in the percentage of cases involving co-defendant individual offenders who were not high-level officials of the organization. In the fiscal year 2000, we observed only 31% of the cases involving a co-defendant who is not a high-level official compared to almost 60% in FY 20. Eric Morehead:                 I think that's a real key data point that can be helpful to organizations when they're talking to their employees about the potential risks involved in misconduct and compliance failures, that doubling basically, of the percentage of individual actual humans that might find themselves facing a federal criminal sanction. Kathleen Grilli:                   Yes. But it's also important to note that they are not high level officials, which might contribute to the fact that you haven't seen so many organizations sentenced in our dataset. That and the culpability score reduction. Eric Morehead:                 Yeah. There's a lot of conventional wisdom. I think that can get debunked by looking at the Sentencing Commission's data. There's that point that it's not all the high level officials, but also that it's smaller organizations because we the headlines that involve the Enrons and other major corporations all the time. That's what gets the ink publications about corporate misconduct. But when we look at the data, it tells a different story. Kathleen Grilli:                   Yes, it does. Eric Morehead:                 And then one other thing that I think is helpful when we're looking at this data is it gives a proper context to the organizations that are facing the most significant punishment, if you will. Because you mentioned before, non-prosecution agreements and deferred prosecution agreements and other regulatory settlements, but there are other consequences out there for organizations that take a federal conviction, including debarment from doing future federal work. And I think the most famous case also is Arthur Anderson, that ceased to exist because they could no longer audit public corporations after they took a federal conviction. So there's other consequences out there when organizations face this ultimate consequence. Last area I wanted to spend just a couple minutes talking about, Kathleen, is what we might see down the road. What are some potential future changes to the organizational sentencing guidelines? What might be over the horizon for people that are paying attention to this? Kathleen Grilli:                   Well, Eric, let me get out my crystal ball and see what I can tell you. First of all, let me just say that I need Commissioners. Eric Morehead:                 Yes. That's true. Kathleen Grilli:                  This lack of voting quorum of Commissioners for three years now, and I'm quite hopeful that sometime in the very near future, the president will be nominating a slate of seven to replace the terms of the Commissioners that have expired. And the one last man standing are acting here, judge Brier. So I don't know what the potential future is. What I can say is that the guidelines were purposely drafted. The organizational guidelines that is were purposely drafted to broadly apply to all types of organizations.                                                And the Commission has been loathed to make changes to those guidelines in the absence of a real hue and cry from either enforcement officials like the Department of Justice, or from the ethics and compliance community identifying a real need for changes. We are well aware of the fact that the two times that the Commission has made substantive changes to the chapter 8 guidelines, that it caused quite a ripple in the stream. And we're hearing a lot about the impact whether intended or not of the chapter eight guideline changes. So I think a new Commission would be loathed to take on consideration of policy changes in this area, absent that hue and cry. But I am not a presidential appointee. I'm simply the general Counsel of the agency. And I will go where my bosses tell me to go. So if they want to work on it, I say, Let's do it.: Eric Morehead:                 Wow. I hope that our audiences got a sense that there's a little bit more to the Sentencing Commission than just the seven hallmarks of the sentencing guidelines that they learned about when they first came into this area. But I'm afraid we're out of time for today. But Kathleen, thank you so much for joining me on this episode. Kathleen Grilli:                   Eric, thank you so much for inviting me. I really had a good time. Eric Morehead:                 Well, my name is Eric Moorhead, and I want to thank all of you for listening to The Principled Podcast by LRN. Outro:                                   We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning, ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google podcasts, or wherever you listen. And don't forget to leave us a review.

Rising violent crime rates in the United States has prompted a gun control push by the Biden administration and the Democratic Party. Biden has stated in a CNN town hall that he wants to target all "semi-automatic" guns – both rifles and pistols, which have the capacity **to hold more than 20 rounds. Because most firearms possess this capability, such an act would turn most law-abiding Americans into criminals. Naturally, Biden's remarks have generated significant controversy.Here to discuss with me the Biden Administration's plans for gun control, the rationale (if any) behind them, and the reality behind guns and crime rates in America, is Dr. John R. Lott.You may know Dr. Lott as the meticulous researcher and economist behind books like Gun Control Myths, More Guns, Less Crime, and The Bias Against Guns. He is a world-recognized expert on guns and crime, and founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center and has held various research and teaching positions, including at the University of Chicago, Yale, Wharton School of Business, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Rice University.John Lott was also the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-89, and has published over 100 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals.When it comes to guns, it's important to separate the stuff from the fluff. Get the facts, on the show of ideas, not attitude.

John Lott, Ph.D President, Crime Prevention Research Center Gun Control Myths The CPRC was founded by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., an economist and a world-recognized expert on guns and crime. Lott has held research or teaching positions at various academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Rice University, and was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-1989. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman noted: “John Lott has few equals as a perceptive analyst of controversial public policy issues.” He is a columnist for Fox News and Townhall. com. Lott is a prolific author for both academic and popular publications. He has published over 100 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals and this is his tenth book. His previous books include “More Guns, Less Crime,” “The Bias Against Guns,” “Freedomnomics,” “Dumbing Down the Courts: How politics keeps the smartest judges off the bench,” “The War on Guns,” and “Gun Control Myths.” Show highlights: What are some of the big gun control myths? 94% of the mass public shooting in the United States are in areas where guns are banned It is about as easy to stop criminals from getting guns as it is to stop them from getting illegal drugs Faults with background checks 33% of black males are legally prohibited from owning guns Do background checks look at the pharmaceutical drugs people are taking? How the United States mass shooting rate compares to the rates of other countries? Will gun advocates be more challenged if Biden is elected in November? How the judicial system is in gridlock? Liberals vs. conservatives on the topic of gun control

On this episode of Blunt Force Truth, Chuck and Mark are joined by John Lott, Jr. They focus on the violence happening across the country and the true facts about law enforcement. Today’s show rundown: · The struggles getting the truth out on gun control and gun laws · How the media, education system, and Democrats work together to silence pro-gun research · How we can get our education system back on track and support diversity of thought · Black Lives Matter’s demands: the facts do not back their claims · The hard facts on police violence and why there is more crime in Democrat-led cities · Why Democratic policies have fueled gun sales across the country · What we can attribute the large spike in crime to and how to combat it More about John Lott, Jr.: Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. is an economist and a world recognized expert on guns and crime. Lott has held research or teaching positions at various academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Rice University, and was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-1989. He is currently a contributor to The Hill newspaper and a Fox News columnist. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA. Lott is a prolific author for both academic and popular publications. He has published over 100 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals and written nine books, including “More Guns, Less Crime,” “The Bias Against Guns,” and “Freedomnomics.” His most recent books are “Dumbing Down the Courts: How politics keeps the smartest judges off the bench” and “The War on Guns.” Nobel laureate Milton Friedman noted: “John Lott has few equals as a perceptive analyst of controversial public policy issues.” He has been one of the most productive and cited economists in the world (during1969 to 2000 he ranked 26th worldwide in terms of quality adjusted total academic journal output, 4th in terms of total research output, and 86th in terms of citations). Among economics, business and law professors his research is currently the 28th most downloaded in the world. He is also a frequent writer of op-eds. Connect with John Lott, Jr.: Website: http://crimeresearch.org Twitter: @johnrlottjr & @CrimeResearch1 Facebook:

What Should I Know About the Pre-sentence Investigation Report? After a person pleads guilty or is found guilty, the presentence investigation will be the next step. For more details, check out Rule 32 of the U.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure in the federal system. Each state system has a similar rule in the book of criminal procedure. In federal cases, probation officers conduct these investigations to help sentencing judges and others evaluate the background of the person. The investigation culminates with an all-important presentence investigation report (PSI or PSR—used interchangeably). The report will include recommendations, based on guidelines and the probation officer’s opinion. Sentencing judges will consider recommendations from the PSR when imposing sentence. Besides the importance of the PSR for sentencing, people should pay close attention to the process because the report also will play a significant role in the person’s life if he is sentenced to prison.  Information in the PSR influences how authorities classify the prisoner, when he will be released, and what level of liberty he will have after he gets out of prison. To preserve rights and to self-advocate once inside, it’s crucial to understand everything about the presentence investigation before it begins. Best-practice preparations require a person to invest the time and energy to understand the process well before the sentencing hearing, or even the investigation begins. If a defense attorney fails to stress the importance of the PSR, be wary. In prison, the PSR will be the main document administrators will use to make assessments, especially at the start of the journey. Case managerswill use the document to consider the severity of the offense; Counselors will use the document to determine who can visit the offender; Educational administrators will use the PSR to determine whether the prisoner is required to participate in programs; Psychologists will turn to the PSR to see whether the individual is eligible for beneficial programs; and Medical personnel will turn to the PSR to determine whether the prisoner merits medical attention Once the court accepts the PSR, it will follow the person until his journey concludes. If there are errors in the PSR, and the probation officer refuses to make adjustments, then it’s absolutely critical to ask the judge to address these errors in the Statement of Reasons, which we’ll describe below. Beginning the Investigation: The probation officer assigned to the case will begin the investigation by becoming familiar with the government's version of the offense. Then, the probation officer will schedule a face-to-face. The meeting may take place at the person’s home, in the probation office, over the phone, or in the facility holding the person if he’s in custody. Prior to the meeting, the probation officer will have insight on the case from the prosecutor and the investigators. The purpose of the meeting is to collect information from the person being investigated, if he’s willing to offer it. The probation officer will ask the person what he has to say about the offense. He’ll also ask about the offender's personal background. Among other things, the probation officer will ask about: Family history, Education, Criminal background, Employment history, Substance-abuse background, Medical condition, and Financial status. Anyone going through a PSR investigation should remember probation officers are law-enforcement officers. If the probation officer believes the person lied, or provided misleading information, or if he believes the offender tried to influence others inappropriately, the probation officer may make things worse. The probation officer could charge the offender with obstruction of justice if he believed the offender tried to interfere with, manipulate, or subvert his investigation. With such a recommendation, the judge may add additional time to a defendant's sentence. Probation officers have huge caseloads and it may feel as if they’re cynical. The investigator will interview the offender's family members, check the offender's school records, and obtain official records of the offender's previous legal problems. The probation officer also will speak with previous employers, check with creditors, and search for information to verify the offender's statements about his medical condition. A person may reserve his right to remain silent during the investigation. But if he chooses to communicate, he should understand that any lies or attempts to mislead the probation officer could result in a longer or more severe sentence. We recommend honesty and good preparation before the PSR interview. Some people refuse to provide any information to the probation officer. They may have valid reasons for wanting to remain silent. But if the person doesn’t participate in the PSR investigation, the probation officer's writing will only reflect the government's version of events. Appellate strategy may influence a person’s strategy. He may choose not to answer questions about the offense. If that is the case, the offender should be courteous, explaining that for appellate reasons, he cannot discuss the case. He may want to cooperate with the investigation in ways that will not jeopardize his rights. We recommend that unless the offender has good reason, he ought to cooperate with the investigation. In fact, we urge defendants to prepare the sentence-mitigation strategy long before the PSR interview, and to provide as much documentation as possible to the probation officer. By giving the officer the personal narrative, the person makes the probation officer’s job easier. He may cut and paste entire paragraphs or pages into the report. This strategy allows the person to influence a document that will prove enormously influential while the person serves his sentence. The PSR will influence administrators that the prisoner may never meet. For example, when making the initial classification of where a person serves the sentence, administrators will rely upon the PSR. Others will use the PSR to determine who can visit. On top of all that, the PSR will include information that determines whether the person gets a lower-bunk pass, qualifies to participate in beneficial programs, and for other crucial issues that can influence release dates. Once inside prison, a Unit Team will meet with the prisoner. Administrators on the team—case managers and counselors—will consider the PSR and the record a person accumulates during his confinement. For those reasons, prior to going inside, people should invest time to understand the myriad ways a PSR will influence the prison term. Then he can make a more competent decision on whether to provide more, rather than less information. Those who’ve pled guilty should understand that the probation officer has the authority to recommend a significant downward adjustment from the sentencing guidelines. If the person convinces the officer that he provided a full and candid description of his criminal actions and demonstrates genuine remorse for his criminal behavior, the officer may recommend that the person gets credit for “acceptance of responsibility.” The probation officer's recommendation in the PSR isn’t binding on the judge, but it is influential. In our experience, people that express remorse for their actions help themselves. If they can persuade the court that their criminal behavior was an aberration rather than a pattern of behavior or a criminal lifestyle, they usually receive lower sentences than those who refuse to cooperate with the presentence investigation. Likewise, those who choose to exercise their rights to silence may be portrayed as unremorseful. Judges would likely take a lack of remorse into consideration at sentencing. The PSR Report Itself: Once the officer finishes the investigation, court rules require him to write his complete report "in a non-argumentative style." After describing the details of the offense and other identifying data, a model PSR from the Southern District of New York contains headings as follows. Offense Conduct: In this section, the probation officer writes the government's version of events and may describe discrepancies that the offender wanted inserted in the document. Victim Impact Statement: If the crime had an identifiable victim, the probation officer may give the victim an opportunity to describe how the offense impacted him (or her). Defendants' Participation: If the offender was convicted along with others in the offense, the probation officer may detail the conduct of each defendant in the case under this heading. This can be prejudicial, because some participants may be much more culpable than others. Offenders ought to ask the attorney to challenge any information that suggests or insinuates that he participated in the same behavior of others if he did not. Prison staff members who evaluate an offender may not make any distinction between participants. If the PSR indicates that one member of the offense was violent and predatory in nature, that information may have a material influence on all members of the offense as far as prison classifications are concerned. Obstruction of Justice Adjustment: If the person obstructed justice in any way, the probation officer may recommend a sentencing enhancement. Examples of obstruction of justice include when an offender tries to influence what others will say during a government investigation. If the offender calls an individual and says, "Don't talk, or else...." the officer may charge the individual with obstruction of justice and with threatening violence. If so, prison administrators may characterize the offender as being violent in nature, which will prohibit participation in certain beneficial programs. Acceptance of Responsibility Adjustment: If the offender is candid about his responsibility, the probation officer may recommend a downward departure from sentencing guidelines. The level of the downward departure will depend upon when the offender accepted responsibility. People that plead guilty early in the criminal justice procedure receive the largest downward departures for acceptance of responsibility. It’s a reward for saving the government the time and expense of preparing for trial. Those who proceeded through trial will have a higher burden to meet in order to receive this benefit. But going to trial does not necessarily preclude a person from receiving this sentencing adjustment. Remember, the judge has discretion, and it’s important to build an influential case on why you’re worthy of mercy. Acceptance of responsibility can weigh heavily on the judge’s decision to grant mercy. Offense Level Computation: Criminal statutes and guidelines influence this objective score. Offenders may read about these scores by studying the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual which is available in all federal prison law libraries.  Those who do not have access to prison law libraries may review online or order the book from a bookstore. Guideline manuals may be too complicated to read for those that do not have a legal background. Our courses at ResilienceCourses.com offer some video tutorials. Criminal History: This information comes from past criminal convictions. Points are assigned to those who have been convicted for other offenses, and each prior conviction counts against the score. Chapter Four of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual explains how probation officers count the points. Offender Characteristics: Probation officers use this section to describe what he learned about the offender through his presentence investigation.  It's a subjective description. The offender's family responsibilities also will be discussed as well as the offender's community ties. If the offender engineered a sentence-mitigation strategy earlier, he may want to share his personal narrative during the PSR interview. Probation officers may cut and paste parts of the narrative into this section. That strategy can prove extremely useful to the person as he goes through the system, both in sentencing and while in prison. Substance Abuse: This section describes whether the person suffered from any substance abuse problems in the past. It is an extremely important section. In the federal prison, the BOP has authority to reduce a person’s by as much as 12 months if the offender completes a 500-hour drug treatment program during his incarceration. To qualify for this year off, the BOP will require the offender to provide documentation that he suffered from substance-abuse prior to imprisonment, ideally, during the 12 months that preceded arrest. The substance-abuse section of the PSR report is an excellent place to document a history of drug abuse or alcoholism that would benefit from treatment. During the PSR investigation, defendants that suffered from alcoholism or abused other drugs should report those experiences. If those reports meet certain criteria, the defendant may qualify for participation in a drug-treatment program. If he completes the program successfully, he may get out of prison earlier. People that do not understand the PSR sometimes conceal their history of substance abuse. They mistakenly believe substance abuse of any kind will reflect badly on them at sentencing. Hiding a history of substance abuse may limit access to beneficial programs that could result in a sentence reduction. Physical Condition: Here the probation officer describes health problems or medical conditions.  If the person suffers from a bad back, has weak knees, or any ailments that may have an impact on his ability to climb onto a top bunk or perform certain duties, he should detail those ailments. If the probation officer documents health conditions in the PSR, it may influence housing assignments. If possible, it’s helpful to get a letter from a physician and medical records.  Good preparation includes documentation to support a medical condition. That documentation can help a prisoner self-advocate once his term of imprisonment begins. For example, a doctor's letter verifying a bad back or weak knees will help an offender secure a coveted lower-bunk pass. That pass can be a blessing for an individual who lacks the strength to climb onto a top bunk. Education and VT Skills: The probation officer will ask about education and credentials. To avoid complications, help the probation officer get the information necessary to confirm diplomas and degrees. Administrators in prison will require those that do not have a verified high school education to attend prison-sponsored GED courses for at least 240 hours. They will receive lower wages from their prison work details. Participation in GED classes may have an impact on an ability to earn good time or earned time. Prison administrators frown upon prisoners who have extensive computer experience. If the PSR indicates that an individual has computer programming skills, administrators may deny that individual access to coveted clerical jobs by placing computer ban on his file. Administrative rules may deny camp placement for defendants that have crimes related to sophisticated computer programming and wireless networks. Employment Record: Probation officers will check with prior employers to obtain an evaluation of the person’s work habits. A good work history may influence the sentencing judge. Also, an extensive work history may help a person advocate for himself if he is seeking a specific job in the prison. Financial Condition: Consider all financial liabilities and responsibilities when meeting with the probation officer who is preparing the report. Most criminal convictions result in monetary fines or restitution orders. All felony criminal convictions result in criminal-assessment fees. For some defendants, sentencing courts impose cost-of-confinement fees. Sentencing judges may choose not to impose fines and cost-of-confinement fees if the person is incapable of paying. Judges are less forgiving when it comes to restitution. Laws may require judges to impose felony-assessment fees. If the court imposes a monetary penalty, BOP staff members will demand monthly payments. They will consider any funds that pass through the offender's commissary account as being available for such payments. These charges can make life more difficult inside. If a monetary sanction becomes part of a person’s sentence, the offender's attorney ought to ask the judge to specify that the fine is not to be collected until after the offender's release from confinement. If the judge’s commitment order specifies that the offender doesn’t have to pay the monetary portion of the sanction until the person is released, the BOP will not be able to pressure the person for payments during confinement. Sentencing Options: The probation officer discusses options the judge may consider when imposing sentencing. The options are rather limited in that they only offer a monetary fine, probation, or incarceration in some form—either house arrest, a community confinement center, or imprisonment. Many crimes, particularly offenses related to the distribution of drugs, require mandatory-minimum sentences that preclude sanctions less than imprisonment. One can develop a better understanding of federal sentencing options by reading the most current edition of the very detailed Federal Sentencing Law And Practice by Thomas W. Hutchison, et al, and published by West Group. Factors that May Warrant Departure: In the federal system, judges must consider sentencing guidelines. The guidelines are not mandatory, but most judges use them as a starting point. If the judge chooses to depart from established guidelines for a specific offender, the judge must articulate his reasons during the sentencing hearing. The probation officer will describe factors that may warrant either a downward or upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. The most common downward departure is when an offender cooperates with the government in the investigation and provides assistance in the prosecution of others. People that place the highest value on getting out of prison at the soonest possible time may choose to cooperate with prosecutors. Such decisions may influence where a person serves his time, and whether that person is ostracized by others in prison. In rare instances, probation officers may recommend downward departures for other reasons. They may find that a person’s situation is markedly different from others that were convicted of the same type of offense. It is a high burden, but in rare cases, people receive downward departures for issues other than cooperating in the prosecution of others. Upward departures are more common. Judges issue sentences that are harsher than the guidelines when they’re convinced that the sentencing guidelines do not reflect the seriousness of the offender's conduct. The Completed PSR Report: Following the completion of the PSR, the probation officer will deliver copies of the report to the prosecutor and the offender's attorney. Both parties will have time to review the document.  If inaccuracies appear, each party will have an opportunity to object to the perceived errors. Once the objections are noted, the probation officer will determine whether the objections are valid.  If so, changes to the PSR will follow. If the probation officer refuses to make changes that either party wants, that party can bring the matter up with the sentencing judge. The judge will listen to both sides and each side may present evidence to bolster its position. After hearing the arguments, the judge will make a determination. Sometimes, though, the judge may sentence the offender according to his findings at the hearing, but not order changes to the written PSR. Defense attorneys should be vigilant in efforts to get a PSR that accurately reflects the judge's findings. The BOP will use the PSR for classifications and to make other decisions, which can have a huge influence on how and where the person serves the sentence. If the judge chooses not to order the probation officer to correct a PSR, the defense attorney may ask the judge to make specific findings in the commitment order, and also in a Statement of Reasons for the sentence. Statement of Reasons: In addition to the PSR, the court will submit a Statement of Reasons to the Bureau of Prisons. See Title 28 United States Code Section 994(w)(1)(B), which tells us: the written statement of reasons for the sentence imposed (which shall include the reason for any departure from the otherwise applicable guideline range and which shall be stated on the written statement of reasons form issued by the Judicial Conference and approved by the United States Sentencing Commission); In February 2016, the Judicial Conference issued, and the Sentencing Commission approved, Form AE 245B. Section IB4 of the revised form tell us that: “comments or factual findings concerning any information in the presentence report, including information that the Federal Bureau of Prisons may rely on when it makes inmate classification, designation, or programming decisions.” The United States Sentencing Commission published a video at the following location that offers more insight into the Statement of Reasons: https://www.ussc.gov/education/videos/sentencing-and-guidelines-revised-statement-reasons-form The Bureau of Prisons will review both the Statement of Reasons and the PSR when classifying a person. For that reason, attorneys should make a strong case to persuade the judge to put specific language in the Statement of Reasons that may help a person qualify for specific BOP programs. That Statement of Reasons could potentially influence an earlier release date. Program Statement 5322.13 requires the BOP to consider the Statement of Reasons when calculating each prisoner’s security level. For that reason, some may argue that the Statement of Reasons may be an excellent remedy to overcome problems with an inaccurate PSR.

Today's Flash Back Friday comes from Episode 48, originally published in April 2011. Jason Hartman and economist and best-selling author, John Lott, discuss Lott's book, “Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don't.” In his book, Lott answers many common economic questions, such as are free market economies really based on fleecing the consumer, and is everyone, from corporate CEOs to your local car salesman, really looking to make a buck at your expense. He bravely confronts the profound distrust of the market. Lott shows how free markets liberate the best, most creative, and most generous aspects of our society, while efforts to constrain economic liberty, no matter how well intentioned, invariably lead to increased poverty and injustice. John R. Lott, Jr. has held positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice and was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988 and 1989. Lott has published over 90 articles in academic journals. He is also the author of The Bias Against Guns, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, and Are Predatory Commitments Credible?: Who Should the Courts Believe? The third edition of More Guns, Less Crime will be published by the University of Chicago Press this April. Opinion pieces by Lott have appeared in such places as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and The Chicago Tribune. He has appeared on such television programs as the ABC and NBC national evening news broadcasts, The “NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,” and the “Today Show.” He received his Ph.D. in economics from UCLA in 1984. Website: www.Twitter.com/JohnRLottJr

Fearless Training Roar Knowledge Episode 16 - Rick Collins - Legal Authority - Supplement & Steroid Laws Welcome back to the Fearless Training "Roar Knowledge" Podcast where we talk everything; Training, Nutrition & Lifestyle. Rick Collins, Esq. is a founding partner of the Long Island-based law firm of Collins Gann McCloskey and Barry, and a former Nassau County Assistant District Attorney. Awarded the highest accolades for legal abilities and ethical standards (AV-rating) from the prestigious Martindale-Hubbell directory of lawyers, Rick is listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers. He serves as the official legal advisor to the International Federation of BodyBuilders (IFBB) Pro League and is also General Counsel to the International Society of Sports Nutrition. He served as part of the United States Sentencing Commission’s working group on guideline issues relating to performance drugs. In addition to his longtime work as a lawyer in the dietary supplements industry and his role as the foremost legal authority on anabolic steroids and PEDs, Rick is a popular author, fitness authority, actor and former competitive bodybuilder/fitness trainer who has become one of the nation’s most celebrated personalities in the men’s health and fitness arena. His co-authored book, Alpha Male Challenge, has revolutionized the men’s fitness arena — and Rick has become a sought-after expert on the subject of men’s health and physical performance. Rick has been interviewed as a legal authority on performance enhancing substances in the film “Bigger, Stronger, Faster” (2008) and on national television talk and news shows, in talk radio interviews and by countless online and print publications, including USA Today, ESPN.com, The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Village Voice, the Salt Lake Tribune, Newsday and Reason magazine. His practice and accomplished career have been profiled in periodicals as diverse as the prestigious New York Law Journal and the popular MuscleMag International and he is currently a blogger for the Crime section of the Huffington Post. Rick is known nationwide for his groundbreaking work in men’s health, for his leadership in the area of performance enhancing supplements and the law, for his efforts to give a “second chance” to deserving Americans who’ve been through the criminal justice system, and for his philanthropic work in “going to new heights” to raise nearly $100,000 for cancer research by skydiving as an international fundraising event. He continues to be one of the country’s most recognized lawyers and writers in the health and fitness community. To learn more about Rick’s law firm, visit www.cgmbesq.com. To get a message to Rick, send an email to him at rcollins@cgmbesq.com or call his staff at 516-294-0300 during business hours, eastern time. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/rickcollinsesq/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RICKCOLLINSONLINE Follow Along For More Here: Fearless Fundamentals & Master Class Tickets: http://fearlesstrainingunited.com Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fearless_training_/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FearlessTraining/?ref=bookmarks Subscribe Here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFaAxEHPYiM2ucqUs4-z54A?view_as=subscriber Coaching/Business Inquiries: alex@fearlesstraining.org Stay Fearless!

On this episode of Blunt Force Truth, Chuck and Mark are joined by John Lott, Jr. John brings a wealth of expertise on gun and crime statistics as they discuss the recent mass shootings. Chuck and Mark get John’s thoughts on the Democrats’ calls for gun control. They discuss how Democrats are ignoring the issue of mental health and using horrible acts of violence for political ends. They discuss how an assault weapon ban would not solve any issues and how criminals will find ways around it. Chuck and Mark finish up discussing gun laws, mental illness, and red flag laws. John explains how implementing red flag laws can do the opposite of what they are intended to do. They also explain how Democrats base their decision off emotions, not facts. More about John Lott Jr.: Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. is an economist and a world recognized expert on guns and crime. Lott has held research or teaching positions at various academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Rice University, and was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-1989. He is currently a contributor to The Hill newspaper and a Fox News columnist. Heholds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA. Lott is a prolific author for both academic and popular publications. He has published over 100 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals and written nine books, including “More Guns, Less Crime,” “The Bias Against Guns,” and “Freedomnomics.” His most recent books are “Dumbing Down the Courts: How politics keeps the smartest judges off the bench” and “The War on Guns.” Nobel laureate Milton Friedman noted: “John Lott has few equals as a perceptive analyst of controversial public policyissues.” He has been one of the most productive and cited economists in the world (during 1969 to 2000 he ranked 26thworldwide in terms of quality adjusted total academic journal output, 4th in terms of total research output, and 86th in terms of citations). Among economics, business and law professors his research is currently the 28th most downloaded in the world. He is also a frequent writer of op-eds. Connect with John Lott, Jr.: Website: http://crimeresearch.org Twitter: @johnrlottjr Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CrimeResearchNews/ Don’t forget to leave us a voicemail for the chance to have it played on a future episode. You can do so by clicking the link. https://bluntforcetruth.com/voicemail/ Also, check out the store on our website to get your own Blunt Force Truth gear. https://store.bluntforcetruth.com/

What are the values and purposes behind the pardon power? How has President Trump used this executive power in his first term and how might he use it in the future?  Harry talks with an expert panel including Robert Bauer, former White House counsel and professor, Margaret Love, former pardon attorney, and Rachel Barkow, professor of Law at New York University and a former member of the United States Sentencing Commission.

Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., is an economist and a world recognized expert on guns and crime. He returns to Blunt Force Truth to talk about the factors that are not considered in gun and gun crime statistics. There are many reasons for distorted gun-related statistics and Dr. Lott breaks these down and explains them. Chuck and Mark ask Dr. Lott about the statistics on gun-free zones, mass shootings, and concealed carry. Dr. Lott explains how these three topics are dependent on each other and he shares the statistics that support his explanation. The discussion on gun-free zones and mass shootings leads them back to the reasons for distorted gun statistics. The trio also talk about other research organizations that put out distorted reports and their promotion of the liberal agenda. They then discuss the lack of research organizations protecting the second amendment, law enforcement, and other issues that have been skewed by the left.   About Dr. John R. Lott, Jr.: Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., has held research or teaching positions at various academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Rice University, and was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-1989. He is currently a contributor to The Hill newspaper and a Fox News columnist. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA. Lott is a prolific author for both academic and popular publications. He has published over 100 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals and written nine books, including More Guns, Less Crime, The Bias Against Guns, and Freedomnomics. His most recent books are Dumbing Down the Courts: How politics keeps the smartest judges off the bench and The War on Guns. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman noted: "John Lott has few equals as a perceptive analyst of controversial public policy issues." He has been one of the most productive and cited economists in the world (during 1969 to 2000 he ranked 26th worldwide in terms of quality adjusted total academic journal output, 4th in terms of total research output, and 86th in terms of citations). Among economics, business and law professors his research is currently the 28th most downloaded in the world. He is also a frequent writer of op-eds. Lott is the founder and president of the non-profit Crime Prevention Research Center. To learn more about the organization and read about real gun and crime statistics, visit http://crimeresearch.org/. Connect with Dr. Lott: CPRC Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/CrimeResearchNews/. Dr. Lott Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/johnrlott. Dr. Lott on Twitter @JohnRLottJr.

In this episode we talk about the recent public meeting of the United States Sentencing Commission and what might be in store for the Guidelines.

On this episode of In Plain Cite, Jonathan, Lex, and Rhett discuss guideline amendments adopted by the United States Sentencing Commission and then bring us some commentary on recent Fourth Amendment rulings made by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.