The Most Important Sentencing Conference You May Have Never Heard Of

NASC 2025: The Future of Sentencing Commissions

Next week, many of the brightest and most dedicated minds in criminal sentencing will gather on the shores of Lake Monona and in the shadow of the Wisconsin State Capitol in Madison. They will convene for the Annual Conference of the National Association of Sentencing Commissions (NASC). If you have never heard of NASC before, you are not alone. And that is a shame.

NASC is an unusual conference on many levels. It is for both insiders and outsiders. It is for practitioners (including prosecutors, public defenders, judges, probation officers, and correctional officials), policymakers, academics, and the general public. In a world that is distressingly siloed, NASC is refreshingly open and welcoming to myriad perspectives. By its own description, NASC “was created to facilitate the exchange and sharing of information, ideas, data, expertise, and experiences and to educate on issues related to sentencing policies, guidelines and commissions.” As commissions’ responsibilities have expanded in various jurisdictions, NASC now includes examinations of ideas ranging from pretrial detention to discretionary parole release to post-sentencing alternatives. This makes sense because, if properly conceived, all these topics (and more) are really sentencing issues. Despite the regular presence of professors, NASC has a practical focus, including the real-world application of academic research.

NASC traces its roots back to 1993. As the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s then-Staff Director, Phyllis J. Newton, described in the Federal Sentencing Reporter, the federal commission saw the need as early as 1990 to create a network of structured sentencing jurisdictions. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the National Institute of Justice, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) all explored ways to make that happen. But, as Newton wrote —

. . . in the end, it was the suggestion to hold a national conference that turned out to be most fruitful. The recommendation came to fruition, however, not as a result of BJA or the USSC. In 1993, a law professor at the University of Colorado, Kevin Reitz [now at the University of Minnesota], organized a forum that brought together the state sentencing commissions and allowed the much-needed cross-fertilization to begin.

Conferences resembling the current format of NASC started in 1994 and have been held almost every year since then.

NASC conferences offer a smorgasbord of sentencing excitement. They regularly tackle both cutting-edge and evergreen sentencing topics. Next week, Sentencing Matters’s own Jonathan Wroblewski will be moderating a panel exploring how artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies could or should alter the way sentencing commissions, courts, and other criminal justice agencies do their work. Other sessions will probe such topics as the ongoing work of the Justice Reinvestment Initiatives, the connection between guidelines and legislative intent, technological gaps between courts and corrections on sentencing topics, and the role of age, race, and veteran status in sentencing decisions. But wait, there’s more! Kevin Reitz, the godfather of NASC, will be on a panel discussing the increase in presumptive prison recommendations in Minnesota and a team from Pennsylvania (with whom I am thrilled to be working) will discuss what lessons structured sentencing principles may hold for the imposition of National Hockey League suspensions of players. (This just goes to prove that everything is, at bottom, a sentencing issue.)

Beyond that, two tentpole events at NASC Conferences are real highlights for me. First, there is the “All States Updates.” In addition to the deep dives during the various panels, these updates provide the kind of networking and information sharing that animated the creation of NASC in the first place. Each jurisdiction provides a brief summary of its work over the past year. Learning what colleagues are doing (or not doing) leads to important follow-up conversations and elevates the entire field.

Finally, there is the Richard P. Kern Memorial Award and Keynote Address. Rick Kern was the long-serving Director of the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission who passed away far too young in 2011. In recognition of Rick’s contributions to the field — including a passionate belief in sentencing guidelines and groundbreaking work on data-driven sentencing and risk assessment — NASC created this award in 2012. It recognizes a person who, according to NASC, “has contributed greatly to the development of sentencing policy and research.” This year’s particularly worthy recipient is Meredith Farrar-Owens, who has led the Virginia Commission for well over a decade and has brought that organization to new heights.

In short, there is something for everyone at the NASC Annual Conference this year – and every year. So why isn’t this on everyone’s dance card?

As much as it pains me, I must grudgingly admit that sentencing has come to be seen as a bit of a niche issue. Except in those turbulent times just after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Blakely and Booker (when hordes of constitutional law geeks suddenly realized that sentencing was cool, before moving on to the next shiny object), the ins and outs of sentencing isn’t a topic that captivates the masses. This never made any sense to me because, as noted above, I firmly believe that almost every legal issue (certainly every criminal justice issue) is — in reality — a sentencing issue. As I wrote longer ago than I care to remember —

Criminal sentencing does not just happen in the courtroom. Some key sentencing decisions happen long before court convenes, while other critical sentencing decisions take place long after court adjourns. Although the public focuses primarily on the black-robed figure wielding the gavel, sentencing reflects decisions by a veritable parade of actors, including legislators, sentencing commissioners, police officers, [victims,] prosecutors, juries, trial judges, appellate judges, and executive branch officials.

Beyond reflecting every aspect of our criminal justice systems, sentencing is extraordinarily challenging and consequential. As the inimitable Doug Berman put it, “Sentencing is hard. Like really hard. Like really so dang hard, like really really sooo dang hard.” Indeed, innumerable judges echo that view. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan, for example, observed that, “Sentencing is the most multifaceted, emotional, and challenging task a judge performs. . . The consequences of that sentence may have far-reaching implications in the lives of crime victims, defendants, their families, and others. A sentence can have a ripple effect that can be felt by many and for a very long time.”

But if you are reading this essay on the Sentencing Matters Substack, you get all that. So why is NASC not better known and even better attended? Charitably, it could be that people assume it is only for members and staff of sentencing commissions. Plausible, but factually incorrect. NASC is open to all who are interested in sentencing and, of course, that should be everyone. Less charitably, it could be because NASC’s focus is not exclusively or even primarily federal. Even though the overwhelming majority of criminal cases are brought and decided in the state courts, the federal system garners most of the attention. Don’t get me wrong. The federal system is important, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission is comprised of and staffed by great people generally doing admirable and difficult work. But there is an enduring (and, to me, annoying) fixation on the federal law of just about everything. Maybe we can blame law schools for drumming it into our heads that the federal system is the default. Maybe we can blame at least some state Supreme Courts for deferring to federal approaches even when interpreting some of their own state constitutions. Maybe we can blame the culture for elevating the prestige of the national approach. After all, people say, “Don’t make a federal case out of it,” instead of “Don’t make a Wyoming case out it.” Regardless, without ignoring the federal experience, there is much to learn from those laboratories of democracy called states. We may find something to emulate and something to avoid in our own corner of the justice system. And, collectively, we need to pay more attention to the structures (as well as the severity) of sentencing.

Do yourself a favor. Make your way to Madison, Wisconsin next week for the NASC Conference. Or plan now to be there next August wherever NASC holds it.

You won’t be sorry.