Mandatory Sentencing Reconsidered
By Cathryn Crawford (01/20/04)
Mandatory sentencing and three strikes laws have always been controversial subjects. Legislators who favor these laws reason that they are successfully curbing judges who are considered to be too lenient on criminals, and that they serve to counter a rising wave of crime.
Prosecutors appreciate such laws because the laws give them discretion concerning whether or not to pursue mandatory-minimum charges when indicting someone. The general public tends to approve of mandatory sentencing because it feels good to think that some offenses bring a certain punishment, regardless of the circumstances of the case.
Why do we have such laws? Mandatory sentencing statutes permit legislators to at least appear to be tough on crime. Legislators hear the public outcry over rising crime rates and they are aware that a tough-on-crime attitude is needed to be elected and to stay in office. Mandatory sentencing laws are seen as appealing by lawmakers because they are a quick fix that can be quickly implemented, and they are easily digested with little question by the general public. But do mandatory sentences really work? Although mandatory sentencing is an overall product of a get-tough attitude toward drug crimes, do mandatory sentences really reduce the availability of drugs? Do long prison sentences really address the central problem of drug addiction?
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.
The curbing of judicial discretion and the ultimate unfairness of mandatory sentencing laws are leading some judges to resign rather than to give unfair sentences to undeserving people. U.S. District Judge John S. Martin, a former federal prosecutor who was appointed to the bench 14 years ago by George H.W. Bush, announced in July of 2003 that he was resigning from the bench because he could no longer participate in "a sentencing system that is unnecessarily cruel and rigid." He cited the current "effort to intimidate judges" as well as the objectionable punishments meted out to first time drug offenders. Judge Martin was highly regarded as a tough, conservative judge, with a reputation for giving stern and harsh sentences in gang and drug-related cases.
Eric Sterling, the former congressional lawyer who wrote the mandatory minimums sentencing laws in 1986, says now that he regrets his actions. “Of all the things I was involved in during my nine years on the House Judiciary Committee, my role in the creation of mandatory minimums was absolutely the worst, the most counterproductive, the most unjust. Thousands of men and women are serving many years in prisons unjustly as a consequence of these laws. Sterling, who is currently the President of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, went on to explain that “these mandatories came in the last couple days before the Congressional recess in 1986, before they (Congress) were all going to race out of town and tell the voters about what they're doing to fight the war on drugs. No hearings, no consideration by the federal judges, no input from the Bureau of Prisons. Even the DEA didn't testify...the work that I was involved in enacting these mandatory sentences is probably the greatest tragedy of my professional life." Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist has also criticized the mandatory sentencing laws on several occasions, recently remarking that mandatory minimums are "a good example of the law of unintended consequences" because they "impose unduly harsh punishment for first-time offenders, particularly for mules who played only a minor role in a drug distribution scheme."
The general public and in turn the legislators often say that the judiciary is to blame for rising crime rates. They seem to feel that the judges are soft on crime and incompetent – but how can hamstringing the judiciary solve a problem such as this? Judges have discretion for a reason – they are depended upon to make wise and reasonable decisions on a case by case basis. Mandatory sentencing laws cripple judges in their efforts to factor in all the circumstances when deciding what an appropriate sentence is, and miscarriages of justice are all too common. Mandatory sentencing attempts to fit all crimes and all offenders into the same category; it doesn’t allow the punishment to fit the crime.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Cathryn Crawford
