Sessions Is Bringing Back Cruel And Ineffective Punishment (aka Mandatory Minimums)
A former prosecutor and a former judge write in the WaPo that the "mandatory minimum" sentences that Atty. General Sessions has ordered the nation's prosecutors to pursue are both cruel and ineffective.
Nancy Gertner and Chiraag Bains explain that under Sessions' directive, prosecutors will be required almost always to charge mandatory minimums, however unjust. There's no taking into account any mitigating circumstances; whether a person is a danger to the rest of us; there's just Inspector Javert bringing down the hammer because he can:
Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions instructed the nation's 2,300 federal prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges in all but exceptional cases. Rescinding a 2013 policy that sought to avoid mandatory minimums for low-level, nonviolent drug offenders, Sessions wrote it was the "moral and just" thing to do.Sessions couldn't be more wrong. We served as a federal prosecutor and a federal judge respectively. In our experience, mandatory minimums have swelled the federal prison population and led to scandalous racial disparities. They have caused untold misery at great expense. And they have not made us safer.
Mandatory federal drug sentencing is unforgiving. A person with one prior drug felony who is charged with possession of 10 grams of LSD, 50 grams of methamphetamine, or 280 grams of crack cocaine with intent to distribute faces 20 years to life. With two priors -- no matter how long ago they occurred -- the penalty is life without parole. As one federal judge has written, these are sentences that "no one -- not even the prosecutors themselves -- thinks are appropriate."
They waste human potential. They harm the 5 million children who have or have had a parent in prison -- including one in nine black children. And they wreak economic devastation on poor communities. Studies have found, for example, that formerly incarcerated employees make 10 to 40 percent less money than similar workers with no history of incarceration and that the probability of a family being in poverty increases by almost 40 percent when a father is imprisoned.
Former Atty. General Holder had a wiser approach:
He told attorneys to reserve the most severe penalties for the most serious offenses. That meant charging cases in a way that would not trigger mandatory minimums for a specific group of defendants: nonviolent, low-level drug offenders, with no ties to gangs or cartels, no involvement in trafficking to minors, and no significant criminal history.Holder's policy was part of an emerging criminal justice reform movement. Since 2009, more than half the states have passed legislation to relax mandatory minimums and restore judicial discretion -- including deep-red Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. A new crop of prosecutors is openly questioning the use of long prison terms for minor drug crimes. And a bill to ease federal sentencing has bipartisan support in Congress.
Sessions is bent on reversing this progress.
The way we win -- as a society -- is by pursuing justice, and not nailing people to the wall because we can. Usually, the people we can do this to the easiest are the poorest -- the least able to secure sophisticated (and expensive) representation.
This, effectively, makes for two kinds of justice: Justice for the rich and "throw away the key!" for the poor.
This -- like so much of Trump's America -- is not the America I want to be living in.
I'm not a Rand-ite -- though I think some of what she had to say was right on. And this comment of hers that somebody left in a comment at the WaPo is one of those things:
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. --Ayn Rand
Think about all the things that are now illegal. Harvey Silverglate wrote a book noting that each of us is guilty of approximately three felonies a day.
Oh, wait -- now do I have your attention? Yes, you should be charged with the mandatory minimum for the crime of picking up that eagle feather and, say, sticking it in your hat. Not to worry -- it's just fines of up to $100K and a year in jail. (It's a felony if you're a repeat "offender.")
Still arguing for all them crim'nals to get what they have comin' to 'em?
via @gnewburn
Congress enacts laws, including the Man-Min standards. The Executive is supposed to "faithfully" execute the laws enacted by Congress. When, instead, a President decides he has "a pen and a phone" and will "change the law" if Congress does not act (to his liking), or decide which laws to ignore and which laws, and against whom, to enforce, that's making the President a dictator. AG Sessions has directed the US Attorneys to enforce the law, and to stop withholding material evidence from the courts. There is discretion to vary from the Man-Min standard if, based on a written justification, that is approved by the US Attorney. So, no more wink and nod justice.
If you don't like the Man-Min standards, petition your members of Congress to amend the law. Don't argue that the Dept of Justice should continue arbitrarily ignoring laws which Congress enacted (and which President Clinton signed).
Wfjag at May 16, 2017 1:28 AM
Agree w/Wfjag. Everybody gets all upset over _________ when __________ is the law.
What to do? Write an opinion post. Riot, excuse me, protest. Yell a lot.
Stupid. Get your fricking pol on the line, write an opinion post in your local paper, get involved in local politics, watch what your local lawyers/judges/police do AND comment on. VOTE.
Why should I agree to ignore laws that should be changed but no one wants to change them? Do I get to pick which laws I can ignore? Can I shoot in self-defense masked rioters throwing burning bombs at a "protest"? I felt "threatened".
Snort. Pick and choose. Pick and choose.
ASFA race. Jail 'em, don't release until they have a GED AND a journeyman's trade AND 1 year experience on a government job. Subsidize an local employer 6 months salary IF the dude stays on for 2 years. Most of deese guys will not do this but for those that do it's a second chance at at real life.
Bob in Texas at May 16, 2017 5:34 AM
Also with Wfjag. Changing the law is congress's job. Choosing to enforce the law in an arbitrary manner is corruption. I don't like min-max and I don't really like Sessions. But he is doing the job he was hired to do. Same logic on illegal immigration. If you want the law changed get your congressman's attention and change the law. Don't just decide to not enforce the laws you don't like.
Ben at May 16, 2017 6:08 AM
I agree with everyone else who has posted. The law is the law. If you want to change the law change it, don't ignore it. Also, your thinking on this topic wrong. Somewhere around 95% of all federal cases are plea bargains and they always plead down the worst charges. We aren't throwing people in jail "just for having drugs in their pockets" that is what their sentance was negotiated down to. Often, the offenders are actually dealers who have other more serious charges attached to their crimes. Finally, mandatory sentencing has reduced violent crime in this country since its introduction. If I a get a chance later, I will link to the City Journal piece that breaks down all of the data.
Sheep Mom at May 16, 2017 6:59 AM
I'm with the others. This is not Trump. Congress passes laws, including mandating minimum sentences. The way to repeal bad mandatory minimums is not to have the president or Justice Department arbitrarily ignore the law, but to have Congress change it.
We, the American public, have gotten way too comfortable with presidents and governors interpreting laws and selectively enforcing them. Too many signing statements, presidential memoranda, Dear Colleague letters; too many attorneys general refusing to defend in court laws with which they personally disagree, as if the enforcement of the law depends upon the feelings of the members of the executive branch.
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." ~ Ulysses S. Grant
Conan the Grammarian at May 16, 2017 7:10 AM
Not only is this NOT TRUMP, the state of California is one home of "three strikes" laws - entirely because people were tired of having the same thug victimize them repeatedly.
You know. In Utopia.
Radwaste at May 16, 2017 9:04 AM
"This -- like so much of Trump's America -- is not the America I want to be living in." ~ Amy
Seriously Amy get real. Not saying that in a mean way but Trump and Sessions did not create these laws.
Your Congressional representatives did. Your vote for Bill Clinton did. Your continuing to vote in the same pols did.Congress did. Renewed. Kept it off the table 'cause no one cares that they do.
WTF do Trump and Sessions have to do with this? It's the law! Don't like it, change it. You really really don't want everyone to decide what laws apply and which ones don't. You know this.
Bob in Texas at May 16, 2017 9:16 AM
"We aren't throwing people in jail 'just for having drugs in their pockets'"
Well, yeah, we are, at least in some areas. But: Those aren't federal charges. They are state charges. Although I think the scope of federal law is overreaching, it's still the case that the feds seldom involve themselves in a simple drug possession case. A much worse problem at the federal level is the almost inherently abusive nature of administrative law, in which a person can get hit with a jail term and a six-figure fine for the violation of some penny-ante regulation that nobody ever heard of.
Here's the thing about drug possession charges. As the law continues to restrict the tools that employers can use to evaluate job applicants, criminal record is one of the few things that is both legal to use and publicly accessible. So what's happening is that employers now routinely send applications from someone who has any kind of criminal conviction straight to file #13. And the federal government is leading that charge; with many federal agencies, you are ineligible for any kind of job there if you have a criminal conviction, including simple drug possession.
So now we have a situation where if, while you were a young adult and many a bit too carefree, you were ever at a party that got raided, and you were seen smoking a joint when the cops came in, you are now branded and more or less excluded from polite society. And this becomes more alarming as we are finding out what a crap job many government crime labs do, and how many people are getting falsely convicted because of it.
Cousin Dave at May 16, 2017 10:48 AM
Cousin Dave,
For purposes of this discussion we are talking about federal prosecutions, not state drug laws.
Sheep Mom at May 16, 2017 11:59 AM
You want a law repealed or modified? enforce it with zeal and enthusiasm against all comers.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 16, 2017 12:13 PM
Here is the link. It dispels a lot of myths about incarceration.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/decriminalization-delusion-14037.html
Sheep Mom at May 16, 2017 12:26 PM
"For purposes of this discussion we are talking about federal prosecutions, not state drug laws."
Yeah, sorry, I think my point got lost in all that: blaming Sessions for pot users who get 20-year sentences is a misdirected criticism.
Cousin Dave at May 17, 2017 6:31 AM
Thank God Obama got the Feds to reduce marijuana from a Class I drug, eh?
Eight years of hard work but Obama finally - wait, he didn't get the job done and now Sessions is enforcing the law as it stands?
That Republican bastard! Laws are meant to be harsh and winked at for special classes of people!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 17, 2017 11:30 AM
"Thank God Obama got the Feds to reduce marijuana from a Class I drug, eh?"
OK, good point. It's true that the federal government reserves for itself the power to decide what is and isn't an illicit drug. I wonder what's going to happen between the feds and Colorado.
Cousin Dave at May 17, 2017 1:37 PM
Who knows CD. Colorado is fully in their rights to not use their personnel for that task and there aren't enough federal agents to fully enforce federal law. But FBI agents can show up at any pot store and arrest everyone while confiscating the store. Honestly, if this is the issue that gets states to stop taking federal money to enforce federal law and force the fed to do their own dirty work I would be happy. And Sessions is just the man to set of that kind of issue. He really hates drugs on a very personal level.
Ben at May 17, 2017 4:50 PM
End the War on Drugs. Then there would be plenty of prison space to punish true criminals severely.
mpetrie98 at May 17, 2017 5:50 PM
If a guy is a low-level, non violent drug offender with no gang affilaition, the maximum charge isn't as if he were the boss of a cartel or someplace in between.
So he can't be charged with the serious crime with its endless punishment.
I don't see that Holder wanted the max even for the really, really bad guys.
Just for grins, since probably nobody knows which database has it, how many fathers are in jail for minor drug offenses. I use the term "father" as in involved parent and not disappeared sperm donor.
As a matter of luck, my son played both football and basketball against what might be considered a ghetto school when there were three parents' nights. Once as a JV football player and once each as varsity football and basketball.
Our stands were literally--which doesn't mean figuratively--groaning. The football team, with three dozen players had three intact families standing up with the kids. The basketball team had...none. Not a one. You think that the Father Khows Best guys were in jail for retailing five bucks' worth of weed?
Richard Aubrey at May 17, 2017 8:52 PM
Leave a comment