Cite as: 531 U. S. 230 (2001)
Stevens, J., dissenting
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is
Affirmed.
Justice Stevens, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy join, dissenting.
The question at issue in this case is whether all, or merely some, of the federal prisoners who were convicted of non-violent offenses and who have successfully completed a Bureau of Prisons (BOP or Bureau) drug treatment program are eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). For the reasons outlined below, I believe that Congress has answered that precise question. The statute expressly states that the sentence of every prisoner in that category "may be reduced." Ibid. The disposition of this case is therefore governed by the first step in the familiar test announced in Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843 (1984), for "Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue." Id., at 842.
I
In drafting the statute in question, Congress was faced with a difficult policy choice: whether the commission of particular crimes made certain categories of offenders so dangerous that the costs of offering them early release in return for the successful completion of a drug treatment program outweighed the rewards. The initial drafts of the bill answered that question in the negative and made all federal prisoners eligible for a sentence reduction of up to one year if they successfully completed a drug treatment program. See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 103-320, p. 2 (1993). However, the inclusion of those convicted of violent offenses within the category of those eligible for the inducement soon became a fulcrum of criticism for the larger crime bill within
245
Page: Index Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007