when non-security considerations outweighsecurity concerns. (<strong>For</strong> example, the FederalCorrectional Institution at Alderson,West Virginia, has inmates in all six securitylevels, but all of the inmates arefemale).<strong>The</strong> Bureau of Prisons operates only oneLevel 6 facility, the U.S. Penitentiary inMarion, Illinois, which houses inmateswho require a high degree of supervisiondue to a demonstrated history of violence,institutional misconduct, and predatory h ehavior. Level 1 institutions house inmatesprimarily serving comparatively short sentencesor completing longer sentences begunelsewhere. <strong>The</strong>se offenders are notviolent and are not considered escape risks.Presently, Security Level I inmates accountfor approximately 23% of the inmatepopulation.Parenthetically, the Federal Prison Systemcurrently operates 3 facilities forprisoners with medical problems: FCILexington for Level 1 inmates, the MedicalCenter for Federal Prisoners at Springfield,Missouri, for inmates for whom amore secure facility is required, and thenew Federal Medlcal Center in Rochester,Minnesota.<strong>The</strong> security level of the institution towhich an inmate is initially assigned is determinedunder guidelines on the basis ofthe severity of the current offense, the expectedlength of incarceration, the severityof offenses resulting in previous imprisonment,history of violence, history of escapes,status before commitment (whetherreleased on recognizance or a voluntarysurrender case)," and detainers. <strong>The</strong>Bureau of Prisons looks to the pre-sentenceinvestigation (PSI) report to obtain most,if not all, of this information.In estimating length of incarceration, theFederal Prism System begins with thelength of the sentence and then applies apercentage factor to take account of the factthat people are generally released beforeserving their full terms. <strong>The</strong> judge's statedsentence thus has some impact on theinmate's original security classification,and differences in sentences could producedifferent security classifications. Sentencelength is not the major factor, however.A variety of other considerattons also influencethe institution to which an offenderis sent. One of them is the proximity of theinst~tution to the offender's home.However, the nearest institution of the ap-propriate security category is often a substantialdistance from the homecommunity. Some considerations (such asmedical problems) may override the securityclassification, hut proximity to theoffender's home does not.<strong>The</strong> Federal Prison System regulationsindicate that a judicial recommendationthat an inmate be assigned to a specific institutionor a particular kind of programwill generally not override the securityclassification, but that every effort will bemade m follow such recommendationswhere consistent with the security classification.In any event, when rejecting thecourt's recommendation, the Federal PrisonSystem will set forth in writing the reasonsfor rejection. In practice, the FederalPrison System may be even more accommodatingthan the regulations suggest.Offenders may also be placed in nonfederalfacilities. Generally, these areusedonly for women and for men serving sentencesof 60 days or less, but there areseveral exceptions to the 60-day limit formen. <strong>For</strong> example, the Federal Prison System has contracted with state and local facilitiesto house federal prisoners. Anindividual given a short-term work-releasesentence (in sonie cases up to a year) willordinarily be confined in a county prisonwith work-release facilities. Offenders areinitially assigned to community treatmentcenters only upon a judge's request. In theabsence of such a request, an bffender islikely to he assigned to such a center onlyfor the last few months before release. <strong>The</strong>more an individual needs to be reintegratedinto society, the more likely it is thathe will be assigned to a community treatmentcenter within 120 days prior to hisrelease. As a result of prison overcrowdingin Level 1 facilities, however, the FederalPrison System has recommended thegenerous use of community treatmentcenters for confinement of short-termoffenders.Certain offenders, by virtue of theiroffense only, do not qualify for Level 1security facilities. <strong>For</strong> example, offendersconvicted of high-security drug offenses,i.e. $1,000,000 and up, who are consideredto be "leaders or prime motivators"of a sophisticated, well organized criminaloperation do not generally qualify forinitial assignment to a Level 1 facility unlessapproved by the Regional Director forthe Federal Prison System. An inmate sen-tenced under the Racketeer Influenced andCorrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18U.S.C. $1961, or Continuing Criminal Enterprise(CCE), 21 U.S.C. $848, may notbe placed in an institution lower than SL-2for at least the first year of commitmentby the Regional Director. In addition, certainoffenders-for example, deportablealiens, violent offenders, etc. -will oftennot qualify for Level 1 security facilities.Basic policy, however, is to assign inmatesto the least restrictive security categoryconsistent with adequate supervision.Transfers are not uncommon within thefederal prison system. Fallowing initialplacement, the appropriate category isreviewed from time to time. <strong>The</strong> reviewtakes account of changes in the informationused to make the inital security classification.In particular, the inmate'sexpected duration of incarceration is recalculatedon the basis of Parole Commissionaction. It also takes account of behaviorwhile incarcerated. Transfers or redesignationscan be initiated by theprisoner through his Unit Team at the institution.If the Unit Team recommendstransfer to the warden, a referral will bemade to the Bureau's appropriate regionaloffice for approval.ConclusionWith statistics showing that an overwhelmingnumber of criminal casesprocessed through the federal courts resultin prison sentences, and with the adventof the new sentencing legislation describedabove, a knowledge of how the UnitedStates Parole Commission and the FederalPrison System work is invaluable to thefederal criminal law practitioner in orderto assure affective representation of hislherclient.Unfortunately, sentencing and postsentencingconsequences of the actual sentenceimposed, are subjects too few practitionerspay much attention to. Manyattorneys consider the case over when theverdict is returned or the client enters aplea of guilty and are thus, not in a positionto render competent advice to theirclients about future rights.Sice statistm published by the administrativeoffice of the United States Courtsindicate that of all criminal cases processedthrough the federal system, approximately78 percent result in conviction, the amount16 VOICE for the DeJ211se / February 1987
1. See text acmmpwying To. 2, in!2. ke texz accompanying fn. 1, supw,lrrslingoNenferothcrwise subkc1 lua wan-&on nlinimum term ndil such date.yuireo that two hearing examiners concur in apuolc mmmendatiun. This revonin~endalionmuat follow a hcaring. <strong>The</strong> law was sitem abontwhether both examiners had to bc prosent at the~gbutths~omrmssian~ptar(icewnto require, as a geml ~le, &at bxh ealninmatendthehearing. H.R. 5241seeksto dllethz.Commission m ufilimits resottrcmmost elfecfive& by requiring that the Codsinn n0longer sahew 10 the general ~ lthti e two hearingeuuoiners conduct a hearing. Imtead, oneexarpliner may conduct the h&ng wilb the sc-mediately upon sentencing is likdy ro spmdsweral days iu a Id facilitr Woteking tFaported by the bf~rshald Service h? the institutionof init* assi&ww1t, wd may also spendrim in other local jails or feded prisms in themumoft~~n5ponatnn Time spetll in IWjaiIsand some Federal inMiUiuns in O h trautntiic,partlculsrly for OnendBls PYpnimCing tbeirfirs ~~~. mmmitment. Henee. a %lufltam saxrendci'pmcedurc has heen dcvelupd'umlerwhich thc oNcndcr my travel uwccompaniedlu tkdcsignated institution and prwd hin~sclfthese for mireofsentam. Usesf thts prowdute is entirely dhin thedimetion ofthecoun.Tke fm that a oriminul def@ndantis not permittedtamin baa bail pding appeal 6oesnot necessanlvmean thut fib win not be ~Ermiiledby the sentencing jud#e to wluntarily surrenderto the inrtitutiundaig~latd fir thesc~irc01 his sentenffi.<strong>The</strong>importewmfaSroluntary surrender"on-, not be ovemmphmzed. Ma offendern who arepctmitted to wlu~twly surrander by the senrasingjudge will be design~tedby Ure Boreauof Pdsons to sarc their sentencein a minimum-. .tory ufviolencc, lhcrcvcrily ofoffenres resultingin prcviour imprisonment, or, alicll slaturVOICE ADVERTISERSAustin Cow Reporters. ...........57CDLP Publications .............. .44CDLP Seminars.. ................ 7CTAC Tentative Schedule .........21Freelance Enterprises .............52Miem Farensics. ................. 4National Legal Serviw ........... 11
- Page 1 and 2: -the Texas (Robert Richard Thornton
- Page 3 and 4: PRESIDENT'S REPORTIKnox JonesIt's w
- Page 5 and 6: The Effective and Judicious Use ofO
- Page 7 and 8: with an mthoritatim? qmseto a quest
- Page 9: Federal Sentencing in the 1980s and
- Page 12 and 13: dividual or $10,000,000 if the defe
- Page 14 and 15: procedure. When prehearing assessme
- Page 18 and 19: Aliens As Criminal Defendants: Stra
- Page 20 and 21: grounds, (see Matter of S, 7 I&NDec
- Page 22 and 23: tion, then in certain circumstances
- Page 24 and 25: Search Warrants ana ~rrest Warrants
- Page 26 and 27: 2d 143 (Tex. Cr. App. 1969). The cr
- Page 28 and 29: specific intent to defraud or harm
- Page 30 and 31: 2d 143 (Tex. Cr. App. 1969). The cr
- Page 32 and 33: specific intent to defraud or harm
- Page 34 and 35: Ex parte James Harvey HAWKINS, No.
- Page 36 and 37: parole eligibility was element of p
- Page 38 and 39: CAPITAL MURDER SPECIAL ISSUES -- AC
- Page 40 and 41: Joe Louis ARRIETA, No. 02-85-202-CR
- Page 42 and 43: Appeals. In the meantime, however,
- Page 44 and 45: sentation or statement made in reck
- Page 46 and 47: Appeals. In the meantime, however,
- Page 48 and 49: sentation or statement made in reck
- Page 50 and 51: the subject of suit is within the c
- Page 52 and 53: From the Inside OutSo the Judge Wil
- Page 54 and 55: m.The P.S.I. is an imporfanant docu
- Page 57 and 58: EthicsPropriety of Supplementing th
- Page 59 and 60: New Motions7he following Motion for
- Page 61 and 62: Respectfully submitted,JOSEPH (SIB)
- Page 63 and 64: where a juror is susceptible to a c
- Page 65 and 66: Letter to the Editor:It is wonderfu
- Page 67 and 68:
serving his time. It also allows re
- Page 69 and 70:
S.W.2d 249 (Tex.App. -CorpusChristi
- Page 71 and 72:
In and Around Texasby John BostonBy
Change language