NCJ Number
226065
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 98 Issue: 4 Dated: Summer 2008 Pages: 1407-1438
Date Published
2008
Length
32 pages
Annotation
This article explores convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
Abstract
Based on empirical data regarding the prediction of recidivism and the efficacy of rehabilitation, the findings suggest that the level of career criminal should be reserved for the smallest possible subset of offenders. In addition to providing the best chance that ACCA will achieve its ultimate goal of reducing recidivism, a narrow interpretation calms fears of constitutionality regarding the proportionality of sentence to crime and is in line with Congress’s manifest intention. The Supreme Court has held that such statutes do not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, drawing the distinction between heightened penalties for the most recent offense based upon the offender’s repeated criminal conduct and additional punishment for the previous crime. Critics continue to question the constitutionality of such provisions. The results reached under a broad interpretation of ACCA call into question not only whether Congress’s intent is served, but also whether such broad application effectively serves any theory of punishment. These concerns emphasize the need for rigorous scrutiny of whether specific prior convictions qualify for sentence enhancement purposes. If courts do not utilize aggregations of relatively minor convictions to achieve sentences that are grossly in excess of the maximum sentence for those minor convictions, then criminals will be more likely to have the full opportunity for rehabilitation. As a result, ACCA will be viewed less as fundamentally unfair and random, and more as an effective deterrent.