The Challenge of Just Federal Sentencing for “Boat Defendants”

Abstract In the U.S. federal criminal justice system, sentencing guidelines for drug-related offenses are pegged to drug type and quantity. This research explores sentencing for a group of federal drug offenders who are found with unusually large quantities of powder cocaine (typically >150 kg): poor, unarmed foreign nationals detained at sea and charged under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. As an unusual type of drug courier, this boat defendant population offers an instructive window into federal sentencing because the defendants are so “similarly situated,” yet they are prosecuted across multiple federal courts and have been sentenced by hundreds of judges. Using a defendant-level dataset built from publicly available data, the study explores sentencing outcomes across circuits, districts, courthouses, judges, and codefendants before and after the First Step Act (FSA) took effect in December 2018, which granted judges increased discretion to impose sentences below mandatory minimums. Results show that average imposed sentences were markedly lower than the estimated guideline minimums, suggesting that courts are recognizing drug weight to be a poor indicator of culpability, particularly post-FSA. The study also shows stark variation in imposed sentences within and across federal districts and among judges within a common court, which points to the unpredictability of sentencing outcomes despite a highly homogeneous offender population. The authors call for a critical reevaluation of federal drug sentencing guidelines to promote fairness and consistency and call for further research on judicial discretion in driving sentencing disparities.