The criminal justice system in the United States is meant to be fair, ensuring that those who are accused of crimes can defend themselves and that those who are convicted of crimes will be sentenced appropriately. However, there are many injustices in this system, and defendants often struggle to protect their rights and ensure that they are treated fairly. One issue that has recently received attention is the fact that people who are convicted of crimes may sometimes face longer sentences based on offenses that a jury determined they were not guilty of committing. This practice is known as “acquitted-conduct sentencing,” and it may soon be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
What Is Acquitted-Conduct Sentencing?
In many cases, people who are involved in criminal cases will face multiple charges. When a person is convicted on some charges but acquitted on others, they should only be sentenced based on the charges they were actually convicted for. However, in many cases, judges consider other factors that may warrant an increased sentence, including offenses that a person was acquitted of. This means that even when a person is acquitted of a crime, they may face a sentence similar to what they would have received if they had been convicted of that offense.
The case that the Supreme Court has been asked to review, McClinton v. United States, provides an example of how acquitted-conduct sentencing often works. In this case, the defendant was accused of robbing a pharmacy along with several other people. After the robbery, one of the people involved in the robbery was shot and killed, and the defendant was accused of committing the murder. He faced charges of both robbery and homicide. However, the homicide charge was based solely on statements made by three other defendants involved in the robbery, who pleaded guilty and provided testimony in exchange for reduced sentences.
...