|
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
The Daily Signal
Senators Reach
Long-Elusive Deal to Reduce ‘Unjust’ Prison Sentences
Josh Siegel
October 01, 2015
A bipartisan group of senators have reached a long-elusive deal on
criminal justice reform, with a proposal that would reduce mandatory
minimum prison sentences for certain nonviolent drug offenses and allow
well-behaved inmates to earn time off their prison terms.
After months of negotiations, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s
agreement — dubbed the Criminal Justice Reform and Corrections Act of
2015 — was set to be introduced Thursday morning during a 10 a.m. press
conference.
The bill, which affects inmates coming through the federal prison
system, has the crucial backing of Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck
Grassley, R-Iowa, who opposes across-the-board repeal of mandatory
minimum sentences and was a cautious voice in the talks.
The main negotiators of the sentencing aspect of the pact were Sens.
Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
Other participants included Republican Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas;
Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Chuck Schumer,
D-N.Y; Cory Booker, D-N.J.; and Tim Scott, R-S.C.
“We are excited about this because we believe we can reverse a few bad
trends that have occurred over the last few decades,” Lee told The
Daily Signal in an interview.
“Since the 1980s, the federal prison population has increased nearly
tenfold,” Lee continued. “But this does not reflect a tenfold increase
in the commision of crime. Instead, it reflects the bad trends. One of
them is the overcriminalization of the law. One of them is the
over-federalization of criminal law, and yet another involved the
all-too-frequent use of using minimum mandatory penalties.”
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws, most of which were enacted during
the tough-on-crime period of the 1980s, require binding prison terms of
a particular length and prevent judges from using their discretion to
apply punishment.
Over the last year or so, varied groups and people from left and right,
like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Koch brothers, have
increased their pressure on Congress to take on surging prison costs
and incarceration rates, trends that advocates blame on excessive
mandatory minimums.
“Minimum mandatory penalties are not always bad,” Lee said. “Some of
them work just fine. The problem is that some of them impose sentences
that are plainly excessive in relation to the behavior they trying to
punish.”
President Obama is also pushing for criminal justice reform, and a
number of states, including southern conservative states with some of
the most overcrowded prison systems, have acted on their own.
Now, Congress finally has a real proposal that should gain traction.
A summary of the proposed Judiciary Committee legislation, obtained by
The Daily Signal, reveals some significant reforms, meant to limit the
impact of the harshest mandatory minimum prison sentences.
Many of the reforms are retroactive, meaning they will benefit people
already incarcerated, not just future offenders.
“This appears to be meaningful reform that will address some of the
worst scenarios of mandatory minimums,” says Molly Gill of Families
Against Mandatory Minimums, a nonprofit that advocates for full repeal
of mandatory minimums.
“It’s a big reform because it will address some of the most unjust
cases we see,” Gill told The Daily Signal.
Some of the new reforms proposed by senators include:
– Reducing mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain nonviolent
repeat drug offenders. Under current law, offenders who have two or
more prior felony drug offenses are automatically sentenced to 20 years
in prison or life without parole. Under the Judiciary Committee
proposal, they would get 15 or 25 years.
Lee explains:
“We have made significant changes to some of the minimum mandatory
penalties that are based on drug quantity. So if you are someone who is
convicted of a nonviolent drug offense and you are not a kingpin —
let’s say you are low-level mule or a courier — we have made some
adjustments to those recognizing that in some instances, the penalty
has been excessive.
– Broadening an already existing “safety valve” law that’s supposed to
keep people from receiving mandatory minimum sentences if they pass a
five-part test. The Judiciary Committee bill makes the criminal record
aspect of the safety valve test more forgiving, so that fewer
nonviolent, low-level offenders will receive mandatory minimum drug
sentences.
Lee explains:
“This allows us to expand the circumstances in which a judge is able to
exercise more discretion.”
– Reducing the mandatory minimum prison sentence for repeat drug
offenders who used or carried a gun during the crime. Under the bill, a
repeat offender would get 15 years, not 25.
– Making retroactive the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, a law passed by
Congress and signed by Obama that reforms the 100-to-one ratio between
powder cocaine and crack cocaine prison sentences.
– Allowing prisoners deemed low or medium risk to earn time off their
prison sentence by completing re-entry programs including education
programs, drug rehab, job training, and religious studies.
– Banning solitary confinement for juveniles in federal custody, with
limited exceptions.
– Permitting the “compassionate release” of inmates who have served
two-thirds of their sentence, are older than 60, and terminally ill.
– Creating new mandatory minimums for interstate domestic violence and
for crimes where the offender provides weapons to prohibited countries
and terrorists.
The Judiciary Committee deal provides a blueprint for the full Senate
to consider.
In the House, meanwhile, Reps. Bobby Scott, D-Va., and James
Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., are lobbying for their own legislation, known as
the SAFE Justice Act. And according to NPR, two leaders of the House
Judiciary Committee, Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and John Conyers,
D-Mich., are writing their own bills.
The hope for advocates would be to get a bill to Obama’s desk before
the 2016 presidential election.
“This looks like a very positive step in the right direction,” said
John Malcolm, the director of The Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center
for Legal and Judicial Studies.
“It includes frontend and backend reforms and contains several helpful
provisions,” Malcolm said. “It’s significant that Chairman Grassley has
signed on since has he been traditionally opposed to any mandatory
minimum reform. It will probably pass the Senate and absolutely makes
it more likely something can get done before the presidential election.”
Read this and other articles at The Daily Signal
|
|
|
|
