The Domino Effect of One Conviction

Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental principle upon which the US court system has been built since 1791.¹ The presumption of innocence, however, has been statistically less evidently applied to previous offenders. The due process clause was implemented to strike a balance between the power of the law of the land and protecting the individual person from it. Yet, once an individual has been incarcerated, their chances of being reincarcerated increase significantly. One of the many factors that contribute to second or subsequent incarceration is a defendant’s criminal history. If your criminal history is irrelevant to your current charge, it should not indicate longer sentencing nor be utilized as a reason to penalize. It suppresses liberty and exacerbates recidivism. To end mass incarceration and reduce rates of recidivism, we must change how a defendant’s criminal history is factored into sentencing.

Although the Sixth Amendment grants defendants a fair and speedy trial, prior convictions lead to longer sentencing. Therefore, one’s criminal record impedes on their innocence. When ruling whether a defendant is guilty or innocent, judges should prioritize the motives and prevalent evidence that led up to the criminal offense. Despite having a criminal record, a fair trial only takes into consideration what the individual has done in regard to the current case. Detainees are protected by “the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution which prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime."² Furthermore, “the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a new trial, or a ‘do-over,’ would violate the double jeopardy clause: forbidding a second trial for the purpose of affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding.”³ Since double jeopardy prevents a case from being tried twice, a subsequent case with an unrelated charge should not have extended sentencing based on prior convictions.

Mass incarceration has now far outpaced the population growth and crime. The leading cause for rising incarceration rates is overcriminalization without changes in sentencing laws. Inmate recidivism reports “that 82% of people incarcerated in state prison were arrested at some point in the ten years following their release, but the vast majority of those were arrested within the first three years and more than half within the first year.”⁴ One’s criminal history is taken into account after arrest. Sentencing guidelines assign each defendant to different criminal history categories based on the extent of an offender’s past criminality. Criminal history categories range from a least serious category which includes many first-time offenders to the serious offense level which consists of adding or removing any specific offense characteristics at hand.⁵ “After the guideline range is determined if an atypical aggravating or mitigating circumstance exists, the court may “depart” from the guideline range. That is, the judge may sentence the offender above or below the range.”⁶ There must be a fair balance between the defendant and the level of punishment he receives. Detainees who have a criminal history have already been sentenced and gone to prison for their previous crimes. It is unusual to keep defendants imprisoned for an unrelated crime that has been already served.

Once a defendant is convicted of a crime, it is more likely that they will be convicted again in their lifetime, establishing this domino effect that one sentence will lead to another. One’s criminal history significantly taints your right for a judicious sentence. This domino effect of resentencing contributes to rising rates of mass incarceration. For instance, Raymond Santana was convicted of drug possession charges and was rightfully sentenced to prison for breaking the law. However, his sentencing was increased due to his criminal history, which tied back to the Central Park Five case yet had nothing to do with drug possession. He “was in prison because he had pleaded guilty in 1999 after the police found crack in his apartment. Because of the jogger case, the drug charge was viewed as his second offense, which extended his jail time.”⁷ The longer sentencing was not necessary due to the fact that Santana had already served his time and the Central Park attack did not involve drugs in any way, shape, or form to impact the judge to extend his sentence. At 28 years old, he “has spent 11 years behind bars, some of it for crimes he does not deny, but the bulk of it as punishment for the Central Park attack, a crime that prosecutors no longer believe he had anything to do with.”⁸ He served more time for a crime he ended up being exonerated for. Five percent of criminal cases are in fact wrongful convictions but lack adequate evidence to prove their innocence against prosecution, resulting in imprisonment and a cycle of re-incarceration.⁹ The possibility of wrongfully convicted prisoners being re-incarcerated should not be taken lightly due to the hidden fact that not all criminal cases have served justice. Thus, sentencing should be based on the crime at hand. Both of Santana’s criminal charges had no correlation whatsoever yet his first crime increased his second sentencing, displaying the unfair treatment and injustices of the criminal system he faced.

One may argue that looking at past cases helps to judge on a basis of character and level of remorse rather than the actual facts of the case. Judges can presume from previous criminal offenses if a defendant is emotionally guilty or not, which does hold weight if the crimes relate. At some point, there are prisoners who repeatedly ignore the authority of judgment’s previous sentencing and repeated offenses are occurring. In this case, repeated criminal offenses do not have emotional guilt for the law and longer sentencing would be just to instill such respect. Ultimately, judges should only consider a prior conviction committed by a defendant if the previous crime is relevant to the current case. Two separate criminal offenses should not impact the sentencing of one another unless committed at the same time. It is a fallacy to bring up a prior conviction that has no ties to what is at hand in the current moment. Each previous offense has its own factors that led to its final conclusion. One’s past does not dictate their future. Of course, there are repeat offenders who are a threat to society and should be incarcerated; however, they are convicts of the same criminal offense. There have been too many instances in our criminal justice system that keep individuals behind bars longer than they should be based on a prior case with no connection to their new charge.

A previous criminal record paints the image of being guilty, making it more difficult to be proven innocent and receive a fair trial. Thousands of incarcerated individuals, Raymond Santana being one prime example, experience immoderate sentencing. Sentencing based on one’s criminal history prevents individuals from the chance to break free from the criminal justice system but rather keeps them in a cycle of ending up behind bars generating mass incarceration. A society where increasing recidivism rates are normalized is a society that needs to re-evaluate its sentencing guidelines, how evidence is taken into consideration, and possibly implement different prison rehabilitation methods. In order to stop the criminal justice system from easily incarcerating previous defendants, an adequate overview of one’s criminal record should be analyzed for relevance. Eliminating biases is an amendment right for everyone, including prisoners who have served their time.

References

1. Classroom, A. (2019, January 15). Fifth Amendment (1791). Annenberg Classroom. Retrieved November 30, 2022, from https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/resource/our-constitution/constitution-amendment-5/  ↩

2. I, LI. “Double Jeopardy.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy. ↩

3. Classroom, Annenberg. “Fifth Amendment - Protection against Double Jeopardy.” Annenberg Classroom, 27 Feb. 2019, https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/resource/protection-double-jeopardy/.  ↩

4. Wagner, Wendy Sawyer, and Peter. “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2022.” Prison Policy Initiative, 2022, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html.  ↩

5. USSC. “An Overview of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.” Federal Sentencing Guidelines, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/about/overview/Overview_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines.pdf.  ↩

6. USSC. “An Overview of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.” Federal Sentencing Guidelines, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/about/overview/Overview_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines.pdf.  ↩

7. Dwyer, Jim. “Man Cleared in Jogger Case Goes Free at the Age of 28.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 Dec. 2002, https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/24/nyregion/man-cleared-in-jogger-case-goes-free-at-the-age-of-28.html. ↩

8. Dwyer, Jim. “Man Cleared in Jogger Case Goes Free at the Age of 28.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 Dec. 2002,

   https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/24/nyregion/man-cleared-in-jogger-case-goes-free-at-the-age-of-28.html. ↩

9. Gilbert, Clare. “Beneath the Statistics: The Structural and Systemic Causes of Our Wrongful Conviction Problem.” Georgia Innocence Project, 2 Feb. 2022,