Researchers Suggest Ways to Improve U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Article Recommends Separate Weight-Driven Tables for Different Types of Defendants, Eliminating Disparities Between Sentences for Crack and Methamphetamine
The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are of pivotal importance to what are collectively among the most consequential drug policy decisions made by the federal government. Two recurring themes have been the balancing—or lack of balancing—between drug weight and the defendant’s role in the drug distribution enterprise, and the basis for judging what relative weights of different drugs should be treated similarly. In a new article, researchers suggest approaches to these questions that offer constructive steps without jettisoning the overall approach.
The article, by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Maryland, is published in Federal Sentencing Reporter.
Sentencing practices in federal drug trafficking cases have far-reaching implications for justice and public safety. Illegal drug markets create massive harms to society, and drug offenders make up a large proportion of the federal criminal caseload and prison population: In early 2025, they accounted for about 30% of individuals sentenced in federal courts and 44% of all federal inmates.
“The way drug sentences are determined also shapes perceptions of fairness and equality before the law,” explains Jonathan P. Caulkins, professor of operations research and public policy at Carnegie Mellon’s Heinz College, the article’s lead author. “Under the current U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, drug quantity plays a dominant role in setting recommended sentences, a method widely criticized as a blunt proxy for culpability.”
The opportunity costs of inefficient sentencing are large, sparking bipartisan interest in sentencing reforms that can reduce excessive incarceration while maintaining community safety. In their article, the authors provide a theory of sentencing based on culpability of individuals engaged in the supply of illegal drugs. They also offer an alternative to the status quo to define relative sentences for both psychostimulants (e.g., methamphetamine, cocaine) and opioids (e.g., fentanyl, heroin) by focusing on the harms associated with each type of drug.
By using three drug quantities tables instead of just one, sentencing practices can address some of the criticisms about over-reliance on quantity: One table, with intermediate sentence lengths, would apply when the role of the defendant cannot be established. Another table with longer sentences would apply to defendants who owned the drug, and to staff who played certain key roles in the organization. A third table with shorter sentences would apply to defendants playing minor roles (e.g., couriers), particularly those employed irregularly or paid on a piece rate basis (akin to gig workers).
“Role alone cannot be the primary basis for the length of a sentence, but having separate weight-driven tables for defendants fulfilling different roles may help focus scarce and expensive imprisonment on key individuals,” says Peter Reuter, professor of public policy at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, who coauthored the article.
The authors also suggest ways to improve how quantity is measured, including imputing weight from cash on hand when the arrest is made. This would avoid capricious variation in punishment stemming from the timing of arrest, such as punishing people arrested after a sale (when they possess more cash but fewer drugs) less than otherwise similar people who happened to be arrested a day earlier, before they sold their drugs.
“Combining these and other suggestions can create a pathway toward substantially revising federal Sentencing Guidelines while still preserving their basic structure,” adds Greg Midgette, associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Maryland, who coauthored the article.
Preparation of the article was funded in part by the National Science Foundation.
###
Summarized from an article in Federal Sentencing Reporter, Revising Federal Drug Sentencing Guidelines to Better Match Sanctions to Harms, by Caulkins, JP (Carnegie Mellon University), Reuter, P (University of Maryland), and Midgette, G (University of Maryland). Copyright 2026. The Ohio State University. All rights reserved.
About Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy
The Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy is home to two internationally recognized schools: the School of Information Systems and Management and the School of Public Policy and Management. Heinz College leads at the intersection of people, policy, and technology, with expertise in analytics, artificial intelligence, arts & entertainment, cybersecurity, health care, and public policy. The college offers top-ranked undergraduate, graduate, and executive education certificates in these areas. Our programs are ranked #1 in Information Systems, #1 in Information and Technology Management, #8 in Public Policy Analysis, and #1 in Cybersecurity by U.S. News & World Report. For more information, visit www.heinz.cmu.edu.