Chapter Five

Introductory Commentary

By statute, sentencing courts must consider and balance a broad range of factors when determining the appropriate sentence to impose in each individual case. Among these factors, courts are required to consider “all available sentencing options.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(3). Each of the available sentencing options—imprisonment, probation, and fines—serves a punitive function, and the sentencing court must determine the option, or combination of options, that best achieves a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes set forth in [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)].” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Congress charged the Commission with promulgating guidelines for sentencing courts to use in determining “whether to impose a sentence to probation, a fine, or a term of imprisonment” (see 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(1)(A)). The provisions within Chapter Five, in combination, guide all aspects of determining the appropriate sentence under the guidelines, including the initial determination of sentence type. By clearly delineating the sentencing options available under the guidelines, the Commission intends for Part A of this chapter to assist courts in making this critical decision.

Introductory Commentary

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 makes probation a sentence in and of itself. 18 U.S.C. § 3561. Probation may be used as an alternative to incarceration, provided that the terms and conditions of probation can be fashioned so as to meet fully the statutory purposes of sentencing, including promoting respect for law, providing just punishment for the offense, achieving general deterrence, and protecting the public from further crimes by the defendant.

Introductory Commentary

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 requires the court to assess a wide range of factors "in determining whether to include a term of supervised release, and, if a term of supervised release is to be included, in determining the length of the term and the conditions of supervised release." 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c). These determinations aim to make the imposition and scope of supervised release "dependent on the needs of the defendant for supervision." See S. Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 124 (1983). In conducting such an individualized assessment, the court can "assure that [those] who will need post-release supervision will receive it" while "prevent[ing] probation system resources from being wasted on supervisory services for releasees who do not need them." Id. at 54; see also Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 709 (2000) ("Supervised release departed from the parole system it replaced by giving district courts the freedom to provide postrelease supervision for those, and only those, who needed it . . . . Congress aimed, then, to use the district courts’ discretionary judgment to allocate supervision to those releasees who needed it most."). Supervised release "fulfills rehabilitative ends, distinct from those served by incarceration." United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59 (2000). Accordingly, a court should consider whether the defendant needs supervision in order to ease transition into the community or to provide further rehabilitation and whether supervision will promote public safety. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(c), 3553(a)(2)(C)); see also S. Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 124 (1983) (indicating that a "primary goal of [a term of supervised release] is to ease the defendant’s transition into the community after the service of a long prison term for a particularly serious offense, or to provide rehabilitation to a defendant who has spent a fairly short period in prison for punishment or other purposes but still needs supervision and training programs after release").