5
U.S. Sentencing Commission, 1990. The “true” first offender also included offenders whose only convictions
were for minor offenses listed in guideline §4A1.2(c)(2) as never receiving criminal history points under the guidelines:
hitchhiking, juvenile status offenses and truancy, loitering, minor traffic offenses such as speeding, public intoxication,
vagrancy, and offenses “similar” to these, “by whatever name they are known.”
6
U.S. Sentencing Commission, 1991a.
7
Offenders in this third group, even though having zero criminal history points, could have prior convictions
that did not receive points because of the guideline exclusion rules (e.g., decay factor, juvenile status offense, etc.).
8
U.S. Sentencing Commission, 1991b.
9
28 U.S.C. §994(j) states in part that, “the Commission shall insure that the guidelines reflect the general
appropriateness of imposing a sentence other than imprisonment in cases in which the defendant is a first offender who
has not been convicted of a crime of violence or an otherwise serious offense . . . ”
10
U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2001a.
11
O’Neill, 2001.
Page 3 of 31
had no prior convictions nor prior criminal conduct.
5
Due to constitutional and policy
considerations, the criminal history working group did not advocate excluding defendants from a
first offender adjustment based solely on prior arrests or charges not leading to convictions.
However, the criminal history working group maintained that provisions could be drafted in such
a way that any “proven” criminal conduct would exclude a defendant from first offender status.
In October of 1991, another staff criminal history working group circulated its report.
6
After
an extensive case review, the criminal history working group divided the defendants with zero points
into three groups: (1) “true” first offenders,” (2) first offenders, and (3) other offenders with zero
criminal history points. Offenders in the first group, “true” first offenders, were defendants with no
prior contact with the criminal justice system of any kind. Those in the second group, first offenders,
were offenders with prior arrests or dismissed charges. All remaining zero point offenders were in
the third group.
7
Simultaneously with the release of this criminal history report, a separate
preliminary report by a sentencing alternatives working group discussed a possible sentencing
reduction for the first offender:
8
a two-level reduction for offenders who had zero criminal history
points and used neither violence nor weapons during the instant offense. The significance of this
proposal was that it both responded to the intent of 28 U.S.C. §994(j) and finessed the need to create
a new “first offender” CHC.
9
The sentencing alternatives working group also described another first
offender approach permitting first offenders access to probation or prison alternatives.
A criminal history working group established in fiscal year 2000 again examined first
offenders and other issues regarding the criminal history chapter.
10
In a more empirical context, this
working group pursued similar definitions of first offenders. Most recently, in a 2001 law review
article, Commissioner Michael O’Neill identified and described first offenders sentenced under the
federal sentencing guidelines.
11
Among other things, the article applied the first offender label to
those without any prior convictions and suggested that first offender provisions could be
incorporated into the guidelines either as a new first offender CHC or as a guided downward
departure. The article ended by recognizing the limitations of a first offender analysis without the
empirical advantage of recidivism data, recognizing that recidivism data permit complete