Law Matters: A Conversation With Dean Jelani Jefferson Exum

For nearly 20 years, Dean & Rose DiMartino and Karen Sue Smith Professor of Law Jelani Jefferson Exum has focused her legal scholarship on closing the gap between the ideals of sentencing and the realities of sentencing practices and outcomes, with the goal of addressing racial disparities in punishment. Sharing her expertise to help reform and shape policy, she recently testified as an invited expert before the U.S. Sentencing Commission on proposed changes to federal drug sentencing. In this interview for our Law Matters story series, she discusses her sentencing scholarship and related efforts in the field.

What sparked your interest in sentencing as a focus of your legal scholarship?

As a law clerk for U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon in Louisiana, I witnessed the human realities of sentencing. I helped prepare the sentencing scripts the judge read in court and had to look defendants in the eye as they received sentences that might remove them from their families and communities for decades. The defendants could easily have been my cousins, brothers, or friends, and I found myself questioning what we were truly accomplishing as a society through such lengthy punishments that seemed disproportionate to the underlying offenses. That experience coincided with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to make the Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory, rather than mandatory. The shift sparked my enduring interest in how sentencing decisions can better align with the stated purposes of punishment—accountability, public safety, and rehabilitation—in ways that strengthen, rather than destabilize, communities. 

Why is it important to you to participate in the policymaking process, as you did when testifying before the U.S. Sentencing Commission?

I’m keenly aware that I’m privileged to be able to devote sustained time to research, data analysis, and writing. Practitioners who see the consequences of sentencing policy every day usually don’t have the time or resources to do that. Participating in policymaking allows me to put my scholarship to work in service of the legal system and justice. My goal is to produce research that provides concrete guidance to those making real-world decisions. This commitment feels especially urgent in the context of federal drug sentencing, where decades of policy choices have produced devastating consequences for communities, particularly communities of color. 

You have pointed to data showing that the U.S. War on Drugs has failed. Why has the criminal legal system been so slow to respond to the evidence?

Our criminal legal system is deeply rooted in the belief that harsh punishment deters crime and ensures public safety. So, it’s been difficult—politically and culturally—for us to imagine alternatives to a punitive framework that reduce the human costs of the system: racial and economic disparities, family disruption, and long-term community destabilization. While there have been important innovations, such as Drug Courts and Mental Health Courts, they remain exceptions rather than the norm. Meaningful transformation requires a willingness to rethink deeply ingrained assumptions about punishment, responsibility, and safety.

The U.S. sentencing system is driven largely by drug type and quantity. How would shifting away from that model bring sentencing closer to its legitimate purposes?

Some of the least blameworthy individuals, such as drug couriers or street dealers operating under coercion or economic desperation, often possess the largest quantities and therefore receive the harshest sentences. Drug preferences and markets also shift over time, rendering drug-type distinctions increasingly arbitrary. I’ve argued for a sentencing framework that centers a person’s functional role in the offense and accounts for systemic inequities that contribute to participation in drug activity. Such an approach better aligns sentencing with criminal responsibility, promotes community safety, and avoids imposing the most severe punishments on those who are least culpable and most easily replaced in the market.

What would meaningful sentencing reform look like?

In an ideal world, I’d like to see a comprehensive rethinking of federal drug sentencing—one that moves away from lengthy incarceration and toward alternative court models, public health interventions for substance use disorders, and investments that expand economic opportunity in underserved communities. In the near term, however, meaningful progress would include concrete steps to reduce sentencing lengths across drug offenses and other crimes, particularly where evidence shows that alternative interventions are more effective at reducing recidivism and supporting healthy, stable communities.