More States Repealing Mandatory Minimums, Report Says

CNSNews ^ | 11/11/03 | Melanie Hunter

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

As the nation copes with growing budget deficits resulting from the economic downturn, more and more states are scaling back on mandatory minimum sentencing in favor of "smart on crime" policies, according to a new report commissioned by a group opposed to mandatory sentencing laws.

But the move is not always motivated by money, said Laura Sager, executive director of Families Against Mandatory Minimums. "The growing movement toward 'smart on crime' sentencing and corrections policies is not driven solely by dollars," she said.

"In the last few years, there has been a major shift in public opinion and political will away from criminal justice policies that do not distinguish between offenders and waste precious tax resources on incarcerating too many low-level, nonviolent lawbreakers," Sager added.

Michigan, for example, a state cited as one of the toughest in the country, repealed its mandatory minimum drug statutes, instead leaving it up to judges to determine sentencing.

William Milliken, Michigan's longest-serving governor, who signed the original mandatory minimum drug-sentencing bill into law in 1978, said he regretted the decision.

Milliken called his signing of the 1978 measure "the worst political mistake of my career." He said at the time it was hoped that mandatory minimum sentencing was an important tool in getting drug kingpins off the streets.

Michigan will save an estimated $41 million this year alone from the reforms.

"From Alabama to Wisconsin, public officials in 25 states have made major improvements in their sentencing and correctional policies," said Judith A. Green, who authored the report.

"Four more states have similar reform proposals under consideration. Seventeen states, including Michigan, Louisiana, Washington, Texas, Kansas and Mississippi, have rolled back mandatory minimum sentences or restructured other harsh penalties enacted in preceding years to 'get tough' on low-level or nonviolent offenders, especially those convicted of drug offenses," Greene said.

Sixteen states, including Texas, Washington, Colorado and Kentucky, have reduced prison populations by shortening prison terms and releasing inmates on parole or probation.

Parole reforms that were introduced by Texas lawmakers in 2000 resulted in a dramatic drop in the state prison population - 7,698 from September 2000 to December 2001.

Governors in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah and Virginia have closed down entire prisons to save money on correctional costs.

[ellery]

Excellent! If only the feds would follow suit...

[ellery]

ping

[Wright is right!]

Mandatory minimums were meant as deterrents. Unfortunately, deterrents rarely work as planned - and in most cases before the courts, they serve merely to make justice look stupid, not blind. Plus, MM's also serve to place the casual white-collar convict in with hardened street thugs. It's definitely time to repeal the Federal MM's as well.

Michael

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[Tacis]

Manadatory minimums were created as a response to the claims of black racists that black criminals were unfairly sentenced because they were, well, black. Everyone gets the same avoids these endless claims.

Once you abolish mandatory minimums or zero tolerance rules, for that matter, you get an endless circle of "there was a white out in West Cupcake who go a shorter sentence for about the same crime and the only this young man got a longer one is because he is black," or "true, the crimes were similar, but this young black man has been oppressed and abused by society all his life and you judges of the 9th Circuit must consider those facts."

The tough part will be the claims 10 or 15 years later that the variable sentence was race based. With all the neocommunists around, a mandatory sentencing system is better thnt a "most black criminals walk" walk system.

[Onelifetogive]

more and more states are scaling back on mandatory minimum sentencing in favor of "smart on crime" policies...

MM's are a result of "stupid on crime" sentencing from judges in the past. To get rid of "stupid" MM's, we need to get rid of the "stupid" judges who made them necessary.

[bassmaner]

Mandatory minimums should be reserved only for violent crimes, and then only for repeat offenders. All other MM's should be repealed, including those for DUIs.

[bassmaner]

To get rid of "stupid" MM's, we need to get rid of the "stupid" judges who made them necessary.

Good point -- all the more reason to vote out the obstuctionist 'Rat senators who keep holding up W's judicial appointments.

[bigfootbob]

Well if you think that is so "excellent" move on out to Seattle or Tacoma, Washington. They use the smart,(strike that), soft on crime approach to prorerty crimes. Consequentially they have the highest car theft rates in the entire US!

It take a car thief being caught 7 times before the perp sees an inside of a jail. How many cars do you think the perp will actually steal before being caught? Unless you've been in Afghanistan training for many years you should know that an automobile is generally the second and in many cases the most valuable possession most of use own. For the police and judiciary to be so indifferent to that fact should be grounds for recall or civil action.

The cops usually don't even bother coming out to investigate. They'll issue you an incident # over the phone for your insurance company report. That's "excellent" collectively for yours & my families insurance rates, huh?

[ellery]

Opposition to mandatory minimum sentences is not about being soft on crime. It's about shifting sentencing power from prosecutors back to judges where it belongs.

[philman_36]

Back during the heyday of the civil rights movement they used "deliberate overcrowding of jails" as an effective means to an end.

[bigfootbob]

What are you smoking today, can you spare a toke? In a perfect world what you advocate makes sense. However, we've had 60 years of extreme liberalism and it has infected the judiciary to the point of collapse.

Hell there's several cases in today's news that make my point; Serial killer Gary Ridgeway and his masterfull avoidance of the death penalty for killing 48 women & todays not guilty verdict concerning the shooter & chainsaw aficionado Robert Durst in Texas.

The 3 strikes laws & the hard time for armed crime initiatives have dramatically reduced the crime statistics in America. No debate, it's proven.

If you wanted to review the STUPID drug laws in America, I'm with you, but leave the personal & property crimes out of the equation.

[ellery]

Hell there's several cases in today's news that make my point; Serial killer Gary Ridgeway and his masterfull avoidance of the death penalty for killing 48 women & todays not guilty verdict concerning the shooter & chainsaw aficionado Robert Durst in Texas.

I don't know that these two cases are great examples, though...prosecutors decided to not seek the death penalty in the Green River case b/c they wanted to resolve the uncertainty of all those poor families -- I think it was a difficult but good decision. On the other case you cite, a not guilty verdict has nothing to do with mandatory minimum sentences, right?

I'm not an expert on this -- maybe there should be mms for violent crimes. But I still tend to think the proper place for these decisions is with a judge (or jury), not a prosecutor.

[bigfootbob]

The Ridgeway decision was a travesty that will continue to reverberate for decades and will cause our legislature to limit prosecutorial plea deals during the next legislative session, guaranteed.

I'll agree my other example was lame, but you get the point. After reflection, I may concede MM for FEDERAL cases should be removed. Just because the Feds aren't the main judicial system that most criminals are brought before and isn't as impacting on the law enforcement budgets of the States. And this is where I've heard of the most egregious examples of judicial heavyhandedness.

[ellery]

I will likewise concede that we have a serious problem with liberal judges who are more interested in understanding a hardcore criminal than protecting the public from him.

But I disagree about the Ridgeway plea. Sure, the guy should fry -- but I think it's even more important to give the families a belated peace. Meanwhile, I suspect he'll have a rough time of it in prison.

[bigfootbob]

Ridgeway's case ultimately ends the death penalty . If you can't execute the nation's worst serial killer, the average double murderer or cop killer can't be put to death either.

I lived in West Seattle during Ridgeway's murder spree & the Wah Me Murders, (26 Chineses/Americans were slaughtered in an afterhours gambling room in China Town by 3 immigrant thugs, they too escaped death), and people were very concerned about their saftey.

The majority of Ridgeway's victims died 20+ years ago the victims families knew they were dead. Ridgeway is evil personified and will die for his crimes, if it has to be in Oregon where he's also being investigated. There are over 75 more deaths linked to him. Hopefully this is reason the plea deal was struck.

The death penalty works. What do you think scarred Ridgeway into cooperating?

Ridgeway will never be allowed near the general prison population. That is part of the deal. Walla Walla, Washington is where he's going, to a special prison inside a prison. He'll be housed in a 6X8 windowless cell 23 hours daily. The door has a 3"X4' vertical wire mesh enclosed saftey glass window. If he's a good serial killer he'll be escorted out of his cell for 1 hour a day by a guard and taken to an exercise yard by his lonesome. No jailhouse justice for him.

[ellery]

Ah. I hadn't realized that the families already knew their loved ones were dead. I also didn't realize he would be in solitary confinement. I am certainly pro-death-penalty in cases such as this one -- this guy has relinquished his humanity.

[robertpaulsen]

"... Laura Sager, executive director of Families Against Mandatory Minimums."

You know who the founder and President of FAMM is? Julie Stewart.

Who is Julie Stewart? She is a libertarian who used to work for the libertarian Cato Institute prior to starting FAMM in 1991.

Do you know why she started FAMM in 1991?

"Like many people, I learned about sentencing laws after being affected by them. In 1990, my brother, Jeff, was arrested for growing marijuana in Washington State and was prosecuted federally, and received a 5-year prison sentence. While I was devastated that he had to go to prison for 5 years, I was outraged that the judge in his case had no discretion but to sentence him to 5 years. I soon learned that the mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws Congress passed in 1986, were responsible for tying the judges’ hands, and I decided to start an organization to change these laws."
--leadershipforchange.org

She was "outraged" that her brother had to serve (85% of) five years in a minimum security federal prison (I believe they're called "country clubs" by some). His widdle, widdle crime? He and two others were caught growing 375 marijuana plants. He lawyered up, the other two guys rolled on him, he went to prison.

The membership of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) is two-thirds prisoners and their families. They're also against the three strikes law.

Don't expect rationality or objectivity from these people. They're led by a woman with an agenda and a score to settle. She (and her two-thirds membership of prisoners) could give a FF about "cost savings to the state" or "what's right". They want outa jail.

Too bad her membership didn't think about that before they committed a crime that they knew carried a MM. Screw 'em.

[ellery]

Interesting info. However, I've developed my opinion on mandatory minimums independently -- so while this is good background, it doesn't change my view on the issue itself (although I'm waffling about whether there should be mandatory minimums for violent crimes). I often find myself on the same side of an issue with someone who advocates it for a different reason than I do. That's just how life works, I guess...