Sentencing Commission Vote, Holder Memo to Prosecutors Will
Reduce Drug Sentences
By Derek Gilna
The U.S.
Sentencing Commissions vote to reduce sentencing guidelines two levels for
certain people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses is a major step in reducing
the sentences of both the newly-convicted and those now in prison. The action was hailed by the ACLU senior
legislative counsel, Jesslyn McCurdy, who noted, “(O)ur
country is slowly but steadily reversing the damage done by the failed,
racially biased war on drugs. The
actions taken by the Sentencing Commission today are another positive move
toward reducing unnecessarily long sentences that have led to bloated,
overcrowded prisons.” “Our criminal justice system,” she
continued,” is smarter, fairer, and more humane than it was a year ago, and we
need to make sure momentum continues in the right direction.”
Attorney General Holder wasted
little time in ordering the implementation of these proposed changes In a memo
to U.S. prosecutors around the country, Holder is calling for the immediate
implementation of the two-level sentencing reduction for drug offenders, even
prior to its effective date this coming November.
Holder is
riding a public wave of pro-reform sentiment that shows that 63 percent of
Americans agree that it is time to move away from mandatory minimum sentencing,
and 67 percent who say that state and the federal governments should focus on
treatment rather than punishment. Even
Congress, in a rare-show of bipartisanship in recent years, is responsive to
reforms that would save billions of dollars and reduce prison time.
If Holder
is successful, this move has across-the-board ramifications for all offenders,
because it shows that the administration is willing to lead on the subject of
sentence-reduction, rather than wait for the bureaucrats to act. It also puts Holder in direct conflict with
local prosecutors, who, of course, think that they are doing a good job by
locking up non-violent offenders for decades.
To illustrate, The National Association of U.S. Assistant Attorneys has
issued this completely clueless quote: “We consider the current federal
mandatory minimum sentence framework well constructed and worth preserving.” They are entitled to their opinion; but
Holder is their boss! So, they have to
implement his guidelines and follow his rules, or seek employment elsewhere.
Fortunately, those holding this draconian view
are in the distinct minority. Perhaps
they are bemoaning the fact that, without a constant stream of drug offenders
to prosecute, their inflated budgets and cushy jobs might be slashed.
Congress has shown itself receptive
to sentence-reduction (and budget reduction) arguments with the introduction of
the Smarter Sentencing Act, introduced in July of 2013, by both Republican and
Democratic Senators, which wouldn’t abolish mandatory minimum sentences, but
would give judges more leeway to impose more lenient sentences for certain
non-violent drug crimes. The bill was
recently reported out of committee and now goes to the full Senate for a vote.
According to Senator Mike Lee of
Utah, “Our current scheme of mandatory minimum sentences is irrational and
wasteful,” adding that the Act “takes an important step forward in reducing the
financial and human cost of outdated and imprudent sentencing policies…”
