Getting to the root of the real problem
Right now there are two main criminal justice reform bills being considered at the Federal Level:
- The First Step Act: A bill that makes it easier for prisoners to earn good time and use it to move from Federal prisons to home or halfway home confinement. The bill also provides protections for women prisoners and creates a lot of programming alternatives for incarcerated folks.
- The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act: A bill that reduces several current mandatory minimum sentences (much needed) while also creating a few new mandatory minimum sentences as well.
I am in favor of both bills as a general rule, and I am a very public supporter of the First Step Act (I don’t see them as mutually exclusive options).
I am, however, a bit unconvinced reducing the severity of mandatory minimums will work for one simple reason:
Mandatory Minimums are a part of the problem but not the core problem.
Race is at the core of the problem.
Mandatory Minimums generate racially disparate results consistently.
As long as judges and prosecutors tendencies toward disparity remain untouched by reform, the return of discretion hardly guarantees better results.
There are three problems with the movement to end mandatory minimum sentences:
- Prosecutors can circumvent any result by pushing for harsher sentences, worse plea bargains, or heavier charging documents in response to reforms they don’t like.
- Judges become vulnerable to public outrage whenever they show mercy or downwardly depart from what mandatory minimums remain on the books.
- These bills never address what many of the core advocates really want to address, the racial disparities at the heart of sentencing in the United States of America.
Perhaps you have heard of the #RecallPersky campaign?
A judge named Persky gave a white defendant what many people considered an unduly lenient sentence for a sexual assault.
An ultimately successful movement grew around the cause of “Recalling” Judge Persky…
