To What Extent Should Criminal Sentencing Take Into Account the Effect on the Perpetrator’s Family?
Criminal sentencing universally acknowledges the gravity of the offence, moral culpability, and the potential harm imposed on the victim. As a foundation of the legal system, criminal sentencing can impose necessary sanctions whilst balancing the individual’s rehabilitation. Many legal representatives and the framework strive to achieve a ‘just’ outcome by providing fair treatment to all citizens. ‘Just’ in the eyes of the law, taken at face value, fails to analyse the hardships of third parties, who consistently face dismissal when placed outside the guidelines of judicial concern. Such actions catalyse inequalities in a household facing conviction, deprive children of parental stability, and trigger wider social, economic, and political instability (Geller et. al., 2009).
This judicial rigidity creates a contrasting conception of equality. Policies, such as the sentencing commission’s section 5H1 and the ASFA, achieve equality by imposing strict guidelines that ignore subsequent social responsibility ties outside of the court. Scholars and legal representatives thus argue for the adoption of a substantive approach to criminal sentencing, recognising that identical sentences may impose unequal burdens when consequences differ dramatically across assorted family structures.
Criminal sentencing, I argue, should consider the effect on the perpetrator's family, but only to a limited extent. Not by adopting a lenient approach to all offenders with dependents, but by recognising that punishment cannot occur solely isolated from foreseeable consequences tied to the family of the perpetrator.
Sentencing Neutrality and Equality Before the Law
A prominent goal of the sentencing commission is to eliminate bias in court hearings, procedures, and limit judicial discretion. Punishment, therefore, primarily is determined through factors relating to the seriousness and circumstances of the offence rather than the personal characteristics of the person who offended, as exemplified under sentencing guideline 5H1.6 describes the defendant’s age, education, vocational skills, mental and emotional condition, employment record, and family responsibilities as “not ordinarily relevant” in determining departures from the applicable guideline range (U.S Sentencing Commission, 2025). Currently, sentencing practice prohibits unwanted sentence disparities amongst defendants with similar records who are found guilty of similar conduct. These characteristics illustrate a devotion to proportionality and culpability rather than social and moral responsibility. To minimise sentence disparities, courts repeatedly prioritise factors relating to recidivism and the role in which the defendant played in the offence over the wider context, disregarding why repeated patterned behaviour arises across multiple cases.
Categorically, a single-axis-imposed framework of criminal accountability may be able to provide a logical accountability of numerous offences; however, by treating criminal history as a potentially incriminating metric, the justice system consistently overlooks the structural and social conditions from which repeated offences emerge. Through Kimberlly Crenshaw’s groundbreaking theory of Intersectionality, she proposes that intersectional subordination is “Unknowingly produced when one burden interacts with pre-existing vulnerabilities to create yet another dimension of disempowerment” (Crenshaw, 1991). Supporting the argument that systems enforced to operate neutrally, unknowingly enhances disproportionate burdens embedded in outdated social structures.
Argumentatively, strict guidelines may discriminate from social accountability of crime, whilst preventing empirical evidence from becoming a turning point in cases. Factors such as the seriousness of offence and culpability present concrete evidence to the decisiveness of the sentence whereas empirical evidence borders on justification for motives that don't lessen the severity of the crime. However, some leniency for individuals and families in greater precarity than others cannot be excluded from aid in the justice system.
Extraordinary Circumstances and the Limits of Judicial Flexibility
Criminal sentencing mandates state that early departure leniency applies only in exceptional cases; this inflexible definition requires the hearing’s senior representative to analyse whether the guidelines are applicable to the select circumstances.
This highlights a conflict of tension between the subjectivity of “extraordinary” circumstances and the court’s attempt to adhere to sentence “neutrality". Yet, the requirements to meet an extraordinary circumstance narrows the scope for permissible departures. These circumstances are conceptualised to involve unforeseeable events outside the defendant's control, including medical emergencies or sudden death. This guideline applies to sudden, immediately destabilising factors, rather than the gradual accumulation of external social-economic factors. Leaving a large demographic of vulnerable cases, such as caregiving dependency, economic precarity and single-parent households, which are insubstantial for court consideration due to such conditions as categorically being enduring rather than unforeseeable events.
United States v. Thomas
This tension is particularly evident in United States v. Thomas, where judicial dedication to guideline uniformity conflicted with incarceration of the sole caregiver. Here the defendant in Thomas was the sole provider for two of her three mentally disabled adult children and the legal guardian of her four-year-old grandchild (United States v. Thomas, 1999). The court based its decision to reverse the district court’s downward departure on the reading of Policy Statement section 5H1.6. The court held that any downward departure based on family ties was improper. Resultantly, the defendant claimed to have found the guidelines to contain “No references to permissible departures under family disadvantages” and viewed references to restitution and fines as “exhaustive” rather than inclusive of minority families (United States v. Thomas, 1999). This decision illustrates how severe caregiving disruption may remain legally unrecognised where sentencing frameworks prioritise uniformity above broader social consequences of incarceration.
The force of the Justice system’s formal engagement to neutrality-based sentencing guidelines relies on the assumption that retributive sentencing inflicts punishment on the offender alone. Yet, in cases where a custodial sentence initiates external struggles in households extending beyond imprisonment, the claim that sentencing should only be concerned with the perpetrator becomes a diminishing argument.
Custodial Sentencing and the Deterioration of Parental Authority
The assumption that sentencing solely affects the offender becomes unsatisfiable once incarceration is accepted as an impetus for wider state systems able of dismantling family structures. A prominent example of such a system is the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997. This organisation is especially prevalent as it drastically subverts the parental authority of incarcerated parents through the secondary legal framework activated by imprisonment. By enforcing additional legal barriers between incarceration and parental authority, the justice system fails to recognise the external consequences of punishment beyond incarceration alone. Sentencing operates not singularly as the restriction of freedom, but as the stimulus for a wider legal process capable of permanently altering family structures.
The ASFA specifically mandates that permanency hearings must explicitly be held within the time frame of 12 months. Affiliated with this is the “15 of 22” provision, which requires initiation of termination of parental rights (TPR) if a child has lived in foster care for 15 of the last 22 months (Adoption and Safe Families Act, 1997). Considering the timeframe provisions of the ASFA have historically been more contentious, exceptions may be applied to cases involving kinship care, agency documentation that TPR would not be in the child's best interests, proof that the state has not provided sufficient services to the family, and other valid reasons. Reasonably, the ASFA provides structural mandates for replacement services whilst prioritising child welfare and sustained quality of life in the best interest of minors. Through this, there becomes an area of conflict between prioritising child welfare and sustaining legal authority of custodial rights for incarcerated parents. Whilst loss of liberty is the primary outcome of incarceration, child and parent relationships become increasingly rigid through harsher visitation rights and limited resources, resulting in a more punitive process in child neglect cases, leading to loss of custody.
Structural Barriers to Reunification in Prison
Even when the ASFA formally preserves opportunities for reunifications incarcerated parents repeatedly face structural barriers that render compliance of expectations unattainable. In the 12-month period leading up to permanency hearings, the ASFA states that parents are expected to maintain meaningful and frequent contact with their children, otherwise arguments could be made for child neglect. This creates an exponential struggle for incarcerated parents due to two main system-induced hardships for parents. The first being that incarceration severally restricts the maintenance of meaningful and stable family relationships. Secondly, imprisoned individuals frequently remain unable to fulfil the socio-economic benchmarks required for reunification.
Maintaining meaningful and necessary contact with one’s child during incarceration presents an obstacle for reunification. Prison visitation is heavily constrained by institutional regulations, travel requirements and the logistical and financial burdens imposed upon external caregivers (Geller et Al, 2009). This burden is enhanced for single-parent households, where continued parent-child contact often depends entirely on the willingness and capacity of third parties to facilitate visits within restrictive prison schedules and socioeconomic barriers. Yet, sustained contact is frequently treated as concrete evidence of parental commitment during permanency hearings. The justice system, therefore, creates a structural contradiction. Whilst the ASFA implicitly rewards continued parental involvement, incarceration simultaneously restricts the freedom and liberty into which such involvement may be achieved. Diminished contact may, consequently, reflect institutional constraint rather than parental indifference.
Unmet Reunification Benchmarks
Incarcerated parents repeatedly struggle to satisfy the practical benchmarks required for reunification and custodial authority, many of which imprisonment makes impossible to meet. In practice, incarcerated parents who may seek to maintain custodial rights of their child will have to meet the requirements imposed by court mandates to demonstrate extensive rehabilitation efforts and present concrete evidence of socioeconomic fitness, consisting of economic independence, and behavioural reform. Only when these conditions are met can a judge consider the plausibility of the defendant's case. The system, traps parents in a vicious cycle, by forcing a custodial sentence on a parent consequently, creating instability. In doing so, criminal sentencing can manipulate this instability into justifiable claims of parental inadequacy. Such expectations may be normally achievable for individuals without restricted freedom; however, a prison setting imposes rigid statutory guidelines that transform reunification from a legal possibility into a legal improbability.
These consequences are not just quantile anomalies but represented the punitive structure of the ASFA. A recent survey conducted by the Marshall project (2006-2016) found that 32,000 people since 2006 had their children taken from them without being accused of physical or sexual abuse, whilst roughly 5000 inmates lost custody of children from imprisonment alone (The Marshall Project, 2016). These figures suggest that the act of incarceration, considerably becomes the decisive factor of loss of custodial rights, demonstrating that decisive sentencing deters judges from making fair decisions. Consequently, children are more likely to endure prolonged separation from primary caregivers, not from direct findings of abuse and neglect cases but through court-imposed timelines incompatible with the modern-day realities of custodial sentencing (The Marshall Project, 2018; Geller et al,2009). Such circumstances highlight that the preservation of permeance overrides the maintenance of precarious household structures.
Given that incarceration leads to severe collateral consequences, it is difficult to argue that sentencing involves merely the deprivation of liberty. Although family issues are administered by child welfare law, it is imperative to acknowledge that the act of imprisonment alone leaves a considerable proportion of inmates as disregarded by the system authoritatively and structurally, to undermine their legitimacy in custodial rights.
Conclusion
Equality before the law refers to the principle that legal rules and judicial procedures should apply uniformly to all individuals regardless of personal characteristics, social position, or background. This philosophy has become increasingly misused in sentencing guidelines and external procedures initiated in custodial rights cases. If sentencing systems designed to achieve ‘Blindness to Background’ prevent unnecessary hardship during judicial procedures, counteract themselves. Whether by the sentencing commission’s overly ambiguous guidelines, which ignite uncertainty throughout the duration of sentencing, or the ASFA’s outdated 15-month TPR enactment. Substantial harm occurs to family members of convicts.
This argument extends beyond measuring the severity of the crime, to how the justice system can prevent repeated patterns of criminal behaviour amongst disrupted households. Only when the justice system becomes accountable for permanent punishments imposed for temporary problems it becomes a less damaging and more rehabilitative system for both the convict and family. In my opinion, the core of this question is whether the justice system can truly claim equality before the law when it actively imposes a profoundly unequal strain beyond the offender. For these reasons, family circumstances should be considered, to a limited extent, in criminal sentencing.
References
Beltrani, Amanda. Effects of Prison on the Family , 6 Apr. 2023,
Geller, Amanda, et al. “Parental Incarceration and Child Wellbeing: Implications for Urban Families.” NAH, National
Institutes of Health, 1 Dec. 2009, Accessed 4 Apr. 2026.
Hager, Eli, and Anna Flagg. How Incarcerated Parents Are Losing Their Children Forever , 3 Dec. 2018,
Jackson, Stephanie L. Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Washington D.C, Washington D.C, 2021, p. N/A-N/A,
A 21st Century Analysis of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and Its Impact on Incarcerated Black
Women, Accessed 6 May 2026.
Lee, Arlene F., and Philip Genty. The Impact of the Adoption and Safe Families Act on Children of The Impact of the
Adoption and Safe Families Act on Children of Incarcerated Parents, vol. 30, no. 5, 2003, pp. 1671–1687, https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1047/.
Raeder, Myrna S. Gender and Sentencing: Single Moms, Battered Women, and Other Sex-Based Anomalies in the
Gender-Free World of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, vol. 20, no. 03, 1993, pp. 905–990, https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol20/iss3/1/.
Yahalom, Shani. Parents in Prison, Children in Crisis: Responding to the Needs of Children of Incarcerated Parents in
Adult Sentencing, Stanford Law School , 2017, Accessed 2 April 2026.
Comments