[Scenic Sounds]

Ping for Cathryn Crawford's latest!

I really like this column, Cathryn. It's one of your best!! ;-)

[Viva Le Dissention]

Everyone with any kind of sense agrees that mandatory sentencing--even in the federal system--is a bad idea.

However, because of the political structure, you can never get anyone to vote against them, because any future opponents will beat them over the head with it, saying they are "soft on crime." You can't pick apart mandatory minimums in an 8 second sound bite on tv.

Unfortunately, they're here to stay. It is what it is.

[SJackson]

Excellent

[wardaddy]

It has been obvious to some from its conception that mandatory sentencing does lead to great injustices. Often people that are in the periphery of drug cases are arrested and are given horrendous and inappropriate sentences. It is also true that the mandatory sentencing laws – meant to be used on the bigger drug lords and dealers – are mostly affecting first-time drug offenders. There are thousands of such cases – like the woman in California who is serving a federal mandatory sentence for possession of cocaine. Her brother and three sons were arrested for selling cocaine out of her house, and despite testimony that she had no knowledge or part in the sale of the cocaine, under the mandatory sentencing laws, she still received the minimum sentence - life without chance of parole. Statistics show that more than 84 percent of those serving mandatory sentences on drug charges in Massachusetts are indeed first time offenders. Meanwhile, the bigger dealers are avoiding mandatory sentences and lengthy prison terms by bargaining with the prosecutors, using the forfeiture of money upon arrest or the sharing of information as chips

That is quite true from what I have observed ...to an extent. Some big fish get hammered regardless of what they have to trade and some don't trade. Little fish have less to trade to begin with. You have both the guidelines and the statuatory min-mans at work here....whichever is higher usually.

[optimistically_conservative]

Good column, the difficulty now is that crime is not increasing, as it was 20 years ago, it is decreasing. What role mandatory sentencing played a generation ago to turn the tide may no longer be valid.

But as Pickering learned recently, actively fighting against mandatory sentencing unfairly applied can be used against you by politicians that put them in place and now cry about their use.

[gcruse]

Mandatory sentencing attempts to fit all crimes and all offenders into the same category; it doesn’t allow the punishment to fit the crime.

The perception leading to mandatory sentencing was that judges were being too easy on criminals.  The Procrustean remedy had the effect of incarcerating whole splotches of Americans in the destruction of individual freedom disguised as a plan to elimnate drug use.  This program, a darling of social conservatives, has been stunningly successful in rendering aforesaid Americans into criminals, coarsening them, and making them outcasts in their own country. 

Unfortunately, the coarser society becomes, the shriller the cry from our moral minders to make sentencing even tougher.  It has reached the point where a man ain't a man if he's not been in the can.  The fallout has polluted music, fashion, and art.  Since these are liberal bastions to a large degree, we blame the problem on the liberals. 

There seems to be a contest going on that is measured by the weight of the Federal Register.  Can I outlaw you before you outlaw me?

[narby]

The memory of defendents with arm length rap sheets being turned loose over and over is slowly receding.

Hasn't anyone noticed that since mandatory minimums became common, the crime rate has been slowly but surely going down? It may not seem that way because of all the junk on the local news broadcasts. But check it out, it's true.

Sure, there are a few cases that can be written up as tradgedies. But they're rare when you count the hundreds of thousands of criminals out there.

Bottom line, getting rid of mandatory minimums helps the lawyer class more than any other. As repeat offenders are convicted over and over and over. Every time with taxpayer paid legal expenses, on the defendants side, the prosecution side, and the judges side.

I see arguments against mandatory minimums are just arguments for Lawyer Welfare.

[marron]

As you know the whole reason for mandatory minimum sentences is that people were losing faith in the judges, and we all read endless horror stories of revolving door justice back in the days when judges had their customary discretion.

In a perfect world, judges are mature men of character, and you want such men to weigh all of the factors both human and legal in his ruling. But the system was broke and mandatory minimums was the fix.

We need to get back to a situation where men of character judge cases, and have the discretion their office requires and deserves. But that is the big catch.

As for the three-strikes law, I have seen violent crime fall every year since it went into effect. It used to be dangerous to walk down the street where I live, and now people walk about with no fear. You put these guys away for good, and they neither can attack anyone, nor can they rope their younger brothers into it, nor do they get girls pregnant with the next generation of malefactors.

I would be willing to adjust the threshold at which three-strikes kicks in, but it has done what the judges lacked the will to do. Take repeat felons out of my neighborhood before they can do any more damage than they already have done.

[E Rocc]

"Mandatory Minimum" sentences have proven to be a really bad idea in drug cases. One of the few good things Sinky did during his time in office was mixed in a few pardons for some egregious cases among all the campaign contributors.

Families Against Mandatory Minimums

-Eric

[ColdSteelTalon]

This is no justice where laws are absolute.

[marron]

My neighbor was a gangster in his younger days, on his last crime he was shot and wound up having a good part of his internal organs removed... He was also on his third strike.

While he was recuperating from surgery, and sitting in jail waiting for trial, he was forced to face himself, and realized that he was headed down a dark road with no way back.

He approached the court and begged for referral to Teen Challenge, even though he was almost 40, and for some reason they gave it to him. He became a Christian, and became the man I know, who has nothing in common with the man he once was.

I have seen him in action with some of the tough kids in the neighborhood, I am very impressed with the man.

God saved him, but "3-strikes" and a bullet got his attention.

[supercat]

The "mandatory sentencing" and "three strikes" laws were intended to help solve at least half of the problem of judges and prosecutors repeatedly showing leniency toward dangerous criminals while throwing the book at comparatively harmless ones. Unfortunately, prosecutors and judges can now use the laws to throw the book even harder at comparatively harmless criminals while they figure out ways to bend the rules to let out the dangerous ones.

After all, governments need crime. Without crime there'd be no excuse for more gun control or other police-state intrusions.

[supercat]

BTW, oftentimes the real problem is 'plea bargaining'. Excellent way to punish the innocent while freeing the guilty.

[William McKinley]

I concur. Good piece.

[gatorbait]

Cat, good and thoughtful article. I recall this judicial tool came about at a time when crime seemed out of control. The lock 'em up and throw away the key attitude was hardening and was, at the time , roundly applauded. The unintended consequences were just glimmers on the horizon but they were there. You point out, rightly, that some of the penalties handed down are disproportionate, but the follow the rule. No discretion allowed. Now, this does not mean I think criminals should be given a hug and a kiss before sent on their way, but I do think this subject is well overdue for a revisit.

Great article, pretty Cat.

[Lawgvr1955]

Anyone who thinks the Guidelines have made across the board sentencing "uniform" is delusional. I live in a rural federal district which has the highest average sentences in the country and the judge with the lowest rate of downward departures. The average sentence in my district is over twice the national average. The crime here is no different than in other rural districts and certainly less violent than in more metropolitan districts. The only answer to why the sentences are twice the average is the mindset of the US Atty and the judges.

Perhaps your district is different, but from my experience the guidelines have failed miserably in bringing "equity" to criminal sentencing.

That being said, the guidelines are here to stay, no one will risk the "soft on crime" claim against them even if the subject were revisited.

[Dan from Michigan]

This is a catch 22.

The problem before is multiple offenders. We had a notorious child molestor and serial killer about 15 years ago that roamed my county and Oakland County next door. He was busted once before, I believe for murder.

Another murderer was let out and moved in my county.(and was driven out) It's stuff like this that started the 3 strikes and similar statutes in the first place.

On the same note, you have nonviolent drug users getting life sentences. Michigan was well known for the 750 lifer law. 750 grams of cocaine - automatic life sentence.(Engler actually repealed it)

In my state, judges are elected. The best thing IMO is for judges to have to face the people. Liberal judges who let Alfieros out need to get the boot. Unfortunatly, we don't do that enough out here. Discretion is important, and too many judges abuse it.

Another thing needed is for the feds(whose judges are lifers) to get pushed back out of areas that should be in state juristiction. I remember a COPS epidose when a certain amount of drugs was found. "This one we're going federal!!!".