Launched in 2019, the nonpartisan Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) is an invitational membership organization and think tank that serves as a center of gravity and incubator of policy and leadership for the criminal justice field. Its mission is to advance understanding of the criminal justice policy choices facing the nation and build consensus for solutions that enhance safety and justice for all. CCJ’s emergence reflects broad agreement across the ideological spectrum that the nation’s justice system is deeply flawed and requires equally deep reform. A quarter-century ago, crime was one of the most divisive issues in politics; today, people in Washington and in capitals of red and blue states alike are uniting behind solutions based on facts and evidence. That consensus and commitment to data-driven policymaking is the lifeblood of the Council, and it is embodied by the accomplished and diverse group of leaders and innovators who comprise its members, Directors and Trustees. Through research, task forces, convenings, and special projects, CCJ accelerates momentum for criminal justice reform and drives smart policymaking by generating achievable solutions that are factual, not just fashionable. The Council’s first projects include an ongoing series of papers analyzing the legacy and lessons of the 1994 Crime Bill, which was and remains the most far-reaching and controversial criminal justice legislation in the nation’s history. Also in its first year, CCJ produced a report documenting recent, surprising trends in racial disparities across correctional populations, marking a significant advance in the data and analysis surrounding this critical issue.

This article updates the author’s previous survey of guidelines systems, published in this journal in 1999, and reviews what these reforms have and have not accomplished. Sentencing guidelines developed by an independent sentencing commission are currently being used in 17 states, the federal courts, and the District of Columbia. The majority of these systems have also replaced parole release discretion with defined good-time reductions for compliance with prison disciplinary rules and assigned prison programming, and this combination of sentencing and parole reform has been endorsed by the American Bar Association and the American Law Institute. The article summarizes and critiques the many variations among guidelines systems. Some relate to scope -- which crimes and sentencing issues are regulated; others concern design details – how the system actually works. The article identifies five central features of a well-designed guidelines system: a permanent, balanced, independent, and adequately funded sentencing commission; typical-case presumptive sentences and departure criteria; a hybrid sentencing theory that recognizes and harmonizes retributive and crime control purposes; balance between the competing benefits of rules and discretion; and sentence recommendations informed by resource and demographic impact assessments. Balance is also needed in terms of commission composition, and between the influence of the commission, the legislature, and case-level actors. But even if all of these features cannot be adopted, some form of structured sentencing is essential; completely discretionary sentencing is unacceptable. And in the past four decades, no competing structured sentencing model of comparable scope has been adopted or even seriously proposed.