Youthful Offenders In The Federal Criminal Justice System
The youthfulness of an offender in the federal criminal justice system has not historically been an encouraged basis for downward departure under the federal sentencing guidelines or given significant weight by sentencing judges. This began to change a few years ago when scientific studies began to emerge showing that the underdevelopment of the brain of young adults effects individual behavior and culpability within the criminal context. This ultimately led to Sentencing Commission recently amending the sentencing guidelines to provide that the defendant’s youthfulness may be a basis departing downward from the sentencing guidelines. Moreover, and importantly, literature and study results around the issue have provided significant justification for leniency under the federal sentencing statute 18 USC 3353(a). This article takes a brief look at the scientific data, the guidelines amendment, and a recent case study.
Scientific Data
The United States Sentencing Commission previously undertook a study of youthful offenders. Youthful Offenders in the Federal System, Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015. The report defines “youthful offenders” as persons age 25 or younger at the time they are sentenced. Id. at 3. The report recognizes that differences in offender culpability due to age have led policymakers to reconsider how youthful offenders should be punished. Id. The report notes that 92% of offenses committed by youthful offenders were non-violent and that the most common offense was drug trafficking. Id. at 4. Also, the report acknowledges the growing recognition that people may not gain full reasoning skills and abilities until they reach age 25 on average. Id. at 7.
The report concludes that the contribution of neuroscience to the study of youthful offending is significant and continues to evolve. Id. at 8. The research has focused on the prefrontal cortex of the brain, the last part of the brain to fully develop, and the part of the brain which is used in impulse control, emotional reactions, executive function, and decision making. Id. The specific scientific findings cited in the report include that the brain goes through two major processes during adolescence and into young adulthood: 1) Synaptic Pruning – the process of the strengthening of important or often-used neural connections, and the discarding of infrequently used synapses; and 2) Myelination of the Frontal Lobe – the process of adding the myelin sheath to the axiom of neurons that allow for faster and more complex brain functions. Id. In common parlance, neuroscientists refer to the latter process as the “whitening” of brain matter and the former process as reducing “gray” brain matter. Id. A final observation made in the report concerns the effect of marijuana and alcohol use on the development of the adolescent brain, with results showing further delays in brain development among youth and young adults with substance abuse histories. Id. at 9.
Sentencing Guidelines Amendment
Pursuant to USSG § 5H1.1, as amended effective November 1, 2024, a downward departure may be warranted due to the defendant’s youthfulness at the time of the offense. Section 5H1.1 states, in pertinent part, as follows-
- A downward departure also may be warranted due to the defendant’s youthfulness at the time of the offense or prior offenses. Certain risk factors may affect a youthful individual’s development into the mid-20’s and contribute to involvement in criminal justice systems, including environment, adverse childhood experiences, substance use, lack of educational opportunities, and familial relationships. In addition, youthful individuals generally are more impulsive, risk-seeking, and susceptible to outside influence as their brains continue to develop into young adulthood. Youthful individuals also are more amenable to rehabilitation.
- The age-crime curve, one of the most consistent findings in criminology, demonstrates that criminal behavior tends to decrease with age. Age-appropriate interventions and other protective factors may promote desistance from crime. Accordingly, in an appropriate case, the court may consider whether a form of punishment other than imprisonment might be sufficient to meet the purposes of sentencing.
In amending Section 5H1.1, the Sentencing Commission reasoned that they held a statutory duty to establish sentencing policies that reflect ‘advancement in knowledge of human behavior as it relates to the criminal justice process,’ 28 U.S.C. § 991(b)(1)(C). They further found that the amendment reflects the evolving science and data surrounding youthful individuals, including recognition of the age-crime curve and that cognitive changes lasting into the mid-20s affect individual behavior and culpability. Finally, they held that the amendment also reflects expert testimony to the Commission indicating that certain risk factors may contribute to youthful involvement in criminal justice systems, while protective factors, including appropriate interventions, may promote desistance from crime. Supplement to Appendix C, November 1, 2024, Page 273).
Case Study
In a recent case that I worked on, the defendant began using marijuana at age 14 and used the substance daily until his arrest for the federal offense. A few years prior to his arrest, the defendant also developed an opioid addiction. He was 19 years old when he committed the federal offense, and was 22 years old at the time of sentencing.
The defendant presented near precisely the type of offender the Sentencing Commission had in mind when USSG § 5H1.1 was amended to include youthfulness as a basis for departure. At age 19 when he committed the offense, a non-violent drug trafficking offense, the defendant’s brain development as reported in scientific studies was still fairly early in the developmental stage. In fact, even at age 22, he was still years away on average from a fully developed prefrontal cortex. Add that the defendant also had a serious substance abuse history, his full intellectual development was almost certainly being delayed even further.
For the above reasons, the court found that the defendant’s youthfulness warranted a departure under USSG § 5H1.1, or alternatively, a variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In determining the extent of the departure or variance, the court reasoned that the defendant’s actual age and history of substance abuse were highly relevant factors that supported a more significant reduction in the sentence.
Conclusion
Youthfulness analysis should not be offered to mitigate the seriousness of the offense. What is critical to ask is why the defendant made the decisions that he made and took the risks that he did? There are clear answers to this question that have been recognized by the scientific community for years, and our now are also being recognized within the federal criminal justice system. The result is that youthful offenders are being treated more fairly and their sentences more reflective of their relative culpability based not only on their conduct but also their capacity to properly exercise good judgment and assess risks. If you or someone you know are a youthful offender in the federal criminal justice system, it is important that your case is properly researched and presented to the court by a knowledgeable federal criminal defense attorney to ensure the best outcome.