Mandatory Minimums

One Federal Judge’s Actions Against Mandatory Minimum Sentences

/ Melissa DiRado / Leave a comment

One of my fellow SLACE members brought this article to my attention, and it serves as a perfect follow-up to my post from last week.

This article addresses a Federal District Judge from the Eastern District of New York, Judge Gleeson’s take on mandatory minimum sentences. Judge Gleeson has taken to asserting his strong feelings against the use of mandatory minimum sentences in the federal plea-bargaining process. The excerpt from his recent opinion (found under the above hyperlink) is worth a read. Additionally, the firestorm of comments left on this article raise several interesting points.

First, one comment asserts that Judge Gleeson is acting outside of his Constitutionally given powers and is acting in direct opposition to the separation of powers between the Executive and the Judiciary. The commenter is correct in that one of the core principles behind our government is that we have three separate and “co-equal” branches. Each branch has specific duties as well as checks on the other two branches. Federal Prosecutors, as part of the Executive branch, have sole discretion regarding whether to charge a defendant and with what crime(s). However, as Judge Gleeson and some of the commenters on this article suggest, there is an ever-growing concern that Federal Prosecutors are utilizing mandatory minimums to force defendants to take a plea and forego a trial. Should we even be concerned with this potential conduct?

Second, the issue of mandatory minimums for non-violent drug crimes arises again. As one comment suggests, “The charge is drug dealing. It likely stands in for hundreds of crimes a year, including the beatings and murders of competitors. The defendant did not learn from prior punishments, perhaps cannot change. After several convictions, only incapacitation serves the purpose of the owner of the law, the public.” Is this how we should view these crimes and subsequently support mandatory minimums for this subset of crimes? Do defendants convicted of non-violent drug crimes deserve a mandatory minimum sentence now because they were simply caught this time? Does incapacitation, through incarceration, of a defendant truly create a law-abiding citizen following his/her release from prison?

Third, the undertone of several comments touch upon the role of the public. Many commentators suggest that it is the public that wants these steep mandatory minimum punishments. Is this true? Furthermore, does the public even really understand what a 10 year sentence for a drug crime really means for a person? One comment suggests that juries should serve as the guide for what “the public” believes. But, another comment suggests that Congress, due to its greater size, is a better sample to determine the interests of the public. Is Congress really a better gauge of public opinion than the actual people they supposedly represent?

I’m interested to know what other people think about Judge Gleeson’s comments, his approach to mandatory minimum sentences, and the ways in which prosecutors potentially use these as threats or leverage to force defendants to plead guilty and forego their right to trial. Many opponents of this view will argue that a defendant is knowingly and voluntarily deciding to plead and not go to trial. This view is also supported by decisions of the Supreme Court. But, precedent aside, is it true that when faced with a mandatory minimum punishment of 10 years in prison or a plea deal to 5 years in prison a defendant is truly making a voluntary decision to plead and not proceed to trial?

Mandatory Minimum Punishments: Do they have a legitimate purpose?

/ Melissa DiRado / Leave a comment

Many federal and state crimes carry a “mandatory minimum” term of imprisonment for any defendant convicted of that crime. In practice, this means that if you are convicted of an offense that carries such a punishment, regardless of any mitigating circumstances in the case, the judge is bound by law to sentence you to the specified mandatory minimum punishment. As I mentioned in my post last week, drug law is one area where mandatory minimums are extremely popular.

Attorney General Eric Holder recently released his intention to reform drug law and do away with many of the mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes. Such sentences have ruined countless lives and overcrowded prisons beyond capacity. Jacob Sullum, contributor for Forbes, reported some of these horror stories in his September 18th article. For example, consider, “a 10-year sentence received by an 18-year-old first-time offender caught with less than two ounces of cocaine, a 22-year sentence received by an 24-year-old woman who sold 13.9 grams of crack to a police informant, and a 25-year sentence received by a 46-year-old father of three who sold some of his painkillers to someone he thought was his friend.”[1] While these are only a few examples of the hundreds and thousands of individuals who received similar sentences, they serve as a realistic illustration of the practical application of mandatory minimums for drug crimes. Are these punishments justified? If so, do they enhance safety or serve some other important interest of our society?

It is hard to see what rational basis is served by incarcerating those who, as above, possessed a miniscule amount of drugs. Are these the dangerous criminals in society who deserve to go to jail for 10, 22, and 25 years? One would venture to guess that most people would see the individuals who import the drugs into the U.S. as the ones who deserve these harsh and lengthy prison sentences.

Additionally, we should also think about the nature of drug crimes, particularly possession charges. It is a fairly established fact that drug addiction can destroy someone’s life; if someone has a serious drug addiction, their actions are, many times, the result of their addiction. We know that drug addiction, much like alcoholism, becomes a life long battle for addicts. Do we throw alcoholics in jail for drinking too much? In the drug context, we send those who are caught with drugs on their person to prison for long periods of time in an effort to “rehabilitate” them.

The flip side of the coin of drug arrests, especially for possession, is that many low-level peddlers who receive these steep sentences are selling drugs to earn money. While this is illegal, are their actions as morally culpable as someone who commits a murder?

The over-arching problem here is that mandatory minimum sentences take away a sentencing judge’s ability to tailor the sentence to the circumstances. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, passed in 1986 as part of the Sentencing Reform Act, judges for many crimes are given an advisory range of imprisonment to consider when sentencing a defendant. There are factors the judge must take into account when coming to his conclusion, thus allowing him the flexibility in non-mandatory minimum cases to set an appropriate term of punishment or imprisonment based on the circumstances. However, before United States v. Booker was decided in 2005, these guidelines were mandatory. 545 U.S. 220 (2005). After Booker, the guidelines were deemed only advisory by the Court. Giving a sentencing judge the ability to appropriately tailor a sentence to the circumstances seems to be a cornerstone of our legal system. Our system aims to punish, but only enough to fulfill our goals of punishment (deterrence, incapacitation, etc.).

However, the Sentencing Guidelines were originally instituted to strip judges of this power to tailor an appropriate sentence. The legislature became concerned with the variance in sentencing for the same crime amongst judges. But, have we gone too far in alleviating the judges of this ability? Should judges have discretion to impose a fair sentence in every case, or only some?

Hopefully Eric Holder’s call for change in mandatory minimums for certain drug crimes will spark a wave of change in this area of sentencing law.

 

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/09/19/rand-paul-is-right-about-the-injustice-of-mandatory-drug-minimums/

 

Eric Holder Announces Support of Sentencing Reform

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Eric Holder Announces Support of Sentencing Reform

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder made a speech at  American Bar Association’s annual meeting announcing his support for sentencing reform measures that would mitigate the harsh effects of drug laws and mandatory minimums. 

Here is an introduction to a New York Times article and video about the speech: 

In a major shift in criminal justice policy, the Obama administration moved on Monday to ease overcrowding in federal prisons by ordering prosecutors to omit listing quantities of illegal substances in indictments for low-level drug cases, sidestepping federal laws that impose strict mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related offenses.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., in a speech at the American Bar Association’s annual meeting in San Francisco on Monday, announced the new policy as one of several steps intended to curb soaring taxpayer spending on prisons and help correct what he regards as unfairness in the justice system, according to his prepared remarks.

Saying that “too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long and for no good law enforcement reason,” Mr. Holder justified his policy push in both moral and economic terms.

“Although incarceration has a role to play in our justice system, widespread incarceration at the federal, state and local levels is both ineffective and unsustainable,” Mr. Holder’s speech said. “It imposes a significant economic burden — totaling $80 billion in 2010 alone — and it comes with human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate.”

Orange is the New Black

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nryWkAaWjKg

Recently, Netflix release its original series “Orange is the New Black.” This engaging comedy-drama is about a federal woman’s prison. The show discusses many issues that are central to sentencing and prison reform.