[The] ex-colleague of Jack Abramoff shared an anecdote from his stint in prison with a room full of conservatives on Thursday. After the one-time Hill climber explained to a fellow inmate that a dog was going to get neutered, the inmate asked the longtime Republican aide, "How long does it take for them to grow back?"
Kevin Ring, the lobbyist who was sentenced in 2011 to 20 months in federal prison for his role in a corruption scheme, was pitching to GOP aides gathered in the Rayburn House Office Building on an effort to overhaul mandatory minimum requirements. Ring, who has been working in downtown Washington, D.C., since his April prison release, wanted the staffers to understand that current guidelines more often send low-level dealers and addicts to prison, not drug kingpins.
"These are the people we think we're deterring with the stiff laws," said Ring. "We think, 'Oh, if we pass a new mandatory minimum of five years, these people are going to sit there and pour over the U.S. code and say, 'Oh, I was going to do that, but I think Congress is entertaining a bill to stiffen those penalties. I'm going to wait this out. Maybe it's not worth it.'"
Most of that is just flat-out false. I was in DOJ for many years while determinate sentencing was being developed, and not a single person I worked with said or thought anything similar to Ring's rendition. As a general matter, sure, we thought that, all other things being equal, more daunting sentences would probably have some deterrent effect, but that is not exactly a new (or very controversial) belief. Deterrence has been an aim of sentencing since sentencing was invented. Absolutely no one thought that traffickers pore over the federal code.
The more important animating belief was that if the law put criminals away for longer, and were more rule-oriented, we would get less crime through incapacitation -- when some druggie is locked up, he's not ransacking your house while you're at work to get pricey items to fence for his next high. And in this we were correct. Not all of the massive crime decrease over the last 25 years is on account of longer sentencing, but a significant part of it is.
It's not that previously convicted criminals could not, in principle, have something to say. Nor is it that they are unintelligent or bad people (I have have had decently cordial exchanges with Mr. Ring on another blog). But viewing their criminal behavior, and the sentences they received for it, as "qualifications" to hold forth as an "expert" about sentencing law, is -- how to say this gently? -- bizarre. At least if you're not taken in by the logic of "sentencing reform," in which the hardships of incarceration are everything, and the hardships of crime victimization, nothing.
UPDATE: Commenter Prof. Doug Berman points out that, in this entry as I originally wrote it, I incorrectly referred to the three men previously convicted of corruption as "witnesses" and gave the impression that they were testifying before a committee of Congress. They were, as Doug notes, brought in to give their views before a gathering of Congressional staffers (very likely from more than one committee). This was not a Committee meeting, and the three were not put under oath. I appreciate Doug's taking the time to set this straight.
Bill, I would be eager to hear your opinion on whom would have the as proper "qualifications" to testify as an "expert" before Congress about sentencing law --- without having any "conflict of interest."
If you think formerly sentenced defendants have a conflict of interest concerning sentencing policy, I would guess you think judges, defense attorneys and prosecutors likewise all have a conflict because sentencing law/policy directly impacts how easy or hard their day-to-day jobs are. In turn, might I suggest that, at least arguably, the only persons with proper "qualifications" to testify as an "expert" before Congress about sentencing law without a conflict would be academics and researchers who have studied this field for many years without having spent a significant amount of professional time as a judge or defense attorney or prosecutor or defendant?
Also, because of your use of the term "testify" and "witness," I was led by this post to think you were focused on a story about persons given sworn statements to a congressional committee. But the story you link to is about what is called a "lunchtime forum" for GOP aides. It is really your view that GOP staffers ought not reasonably try to learn useful information about federal prisons and prisoners from former federal prisoners at a "lunchtime forum"? Who do you think GOP aides ought to be hearing from that they do not already hear from?
1. You are correct that my use of the words "testify" and "witness" was, in context, incorrect. Thank you for pointing out this error, which I will correct forthwith. Still, the gist of the post is on the mark: Bringing ex-convicts in to brief staffers, at lunchtime or anytime, about sentencing reform is, if not a joke, pretty close. Their uniform view of sentencing is easy to summarize: "My sentence was unjust." Since this view is held by a the huge majority of convicted criminals, why even bother? (And even if this view were correct as to the three, it says essentially nothing about their 200,000 or so ex-colleagues in federal prison, and even less about mandatory minimum sentencing, which was the ostensible subject).
P.S. If there's any follow-up to this view, it would be, "I didn't do anything wrong, and even if I did, everyone else does the same thing." I spent years listening to that refrain as the "defense" in white collar cases.
2. I don't really think you believe the people who serve the sentences are no different, in terms of evaluating them, from those who don't, such as judges, defense lawyers and prosecutors.
3. I'm glad to see that you don't dispute my observation that bringing in adjudicated felons to tell Congressional staffers about how they should draft sentencing legislation pulls back the curtain of the breathtaking scope of Washington's overwrought interest-group culture. Perhaps next we should have a lunchtime discussion by jewel thieves about how criminalizing theft is just another depredation of Big Government, fueled by money from the Jewelers Association.
I assume Bill would be in favor of letting Scooter Libby share his views with the committee. Although Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one count of making false statements, Otis wrote in the Washington Post that Libby "though guilty in this instance, is not what most people would, or should, think of as a criminal." Never mind the millions of Americans who lost a little bit of trust in their government officials as a result of Libby's intentional conduct.
Why even worry about mandatory minimums and sentencing when Bill will argue for a commutation of a 30 month sentence imposed by a federal trial judge. I mean even if someone is guilty in a particular instance, just make the argument that they are not what you would think of as a criminal. i.e. a nice conservative Caucasian lawyer who was just lying under oath and undermining the rule of law and trust in government....to serve his country. Therefore, "[a] sense of proportionality argues in favor of eliminating Libby's prison term."
-Will C.
1. "I assume Bill would be in favor of letting Scooter Libby share his views with the committee."
You assume wrong.
If Mr. Libby wants to write to his Congressman, fine. The First Amendment exists for him, too. But calling a convicted felon as an "expert on sentencing" to "educate" legislation drafters is absurd.
2. "Why even worry about mandatory minimums and sentencing when Bill will argue for a commutation of a 30 month sentence imposed by a federal trial judge."
I guess you missed it when I said that commutation is perfectly valid in individual cases of clear injustice.
I guess you also missed Judge Jack Weinstein's breathtaking illustration of why MM's are needed in his illegal and absurd sentencing in the Corey Reingold case. Not that Weinstein is alone.
3. "... a nice conservative Caucasian lawyer who was just lying under oath and undermining the rule of law and trust in government..."
If you're saying that my op-ed in the Libby case was racist (preferring "Caucasians" on account of race), or that I am, I'd appreciate it if you'd say so directly and then sign your full name, giving your professional background that enables you to substantiate such a charge.
Bill, I thought you were against putting words in the mouths of others. If so, you would not have suggested that I was asserting that I "believe the people who serve the sentences are no different, in terms of evaluating them, from those who don't, such as judges, defense lawyers and prosecutors" or that I would concur with your claim "that bringing in adjudicated felons to tell Congressional staffers about how they should draft sentencing legislation pulls back the curtain of the breathtaking scope of Washington's overwrought interest-group culture." Let me explain why these statement seem wrong to me on various fronts:
1. I think all criminal defendants, both those convicted and sentenced and incarcerated and those acquitted, have an important (and too rarely heard) perspective on the operation of the modern criminal justice system. This perspective is, of course, far different from the perspective of those who work inside the system but have never been its target.
In fact, I wish many more well-known "adjudicated felons" --- ranging from Tim Allen to Duke Cunningham to Jesss Jackson Jr. to Scooter Libby to Martha Stewart to Michael Vick --- would spend much more time sharing with policy-makers their distinct views on what is right and not-so-right about our current sentencing laws and policies.
2. Since I live in a fly-over state, I know relatively little about "Washington's overwrought interest-group culture." I do fear that the "golden rule" too often controls -- those with the gold make the rules. That is a reason I tend to be especially intriguing by the information and input coming from "adjudicated felons": they rarely have a financial stake in reforms (unlike, in this setting, private prison companies or private defense attorneys).
In fact, I wish there was an interest group comprised ONLY of "adjudicated felons" (not their family and friends). Notably, there are interest groups comprised of lots of other criminal justice participants -- e.g., police groups, prosecutor groups, defense groups, victim groups, judges groups, etc. Typically, in fact, the only group not heard from is the group most impacted by reform: the offenders. I certainly agree that their perspective should be mitigated by their mis-deeds, but that does not mean their views should be considered a joke or not even worth the time to hear.
Doug --
Convicted felons like the ones you name see things from the nth degree of myopic self-interest; have been shown dishonest (in one form or another (or many forms)) to the highest standard of proof known to law; and know only self-justification. If any of them has a glimmer that the problem was THEIR behavior and THEIR values, not the system's, I hope you'll quote where they said so.
If you want to be "instructed" by people like that, feel free. I don't, and Congressional staff should know better.
P.S. Don't liberals constantly and bitterly complain that financial legislation is influenced by the banks, environmental legislation by the polluters, and transportation legislation by the airlines? But now it's OK -- indeed it's essential -- to have criminal justice legislation influenced by criminals? Far out!!!
I am curious, Bill, if you would include Scooter Libby to be among the convicted felons who saw things from the "nth degree of myopic self-interest" and failed to acknowledge the harmfulness of his behavior and values. Because you succesfully urged Prez Bush, after his conviction by a jury of dishonesty, to give Scooter Libby a get-out-of-jail-free card, I am eager to know more about why you thought this particular felon convicted of dishonesty did not merit the contempt you have for other similar convicted felons.
In addition, if you read my prior comment, you surely should understand the obvious distinction between (a) concerns about industries lobbying in order to get public legislation that enhances their private profits, and (b) belief that those with direct experiences as the target of the federal criminal justice system may have a useful perspective to share on that system.
In the end, Bill, I share your concern about folks advocating aggressively for sentencing reform with a significant "conflict of interest." But I think this is a much bigger concern when that aggressive advocacy comes from lawyers than from former defendants.
I just don't think people who have be shown to be dishonest, and who have a massive conflict of interest in selling the idea that The System Stinks and that they are The Poor Put Upon have a lot to contribute. Should we have Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on a panel analyzing the death penalty?
And it's time to quit with the discussion of my supposed emotions, whether it's my alleged "contempt" for felons, my "hatred" of Obama, and my "lack of courage" in refusing to support the mass sentencing reduction slickly named sentencing "reform."
This site is not about my emotions, which are irrelevant, not to mention all but unknown to you and other readers. It's about the merits of the issues and events discussed in the entries. And that is where it is going to be kept.
What these "convicted Republicans" are up to is simply continuing falsely to insist that they did nothing wrong and that it's everyone's problem but theirs. If they were ten years old, people would understand that what's needed is for them to be sent to their rooms until they have a change of attitude. But now they get the honor, and the platform, of addressing key Congressional aides.
What nonsense. They have no expertise. What they have is self-justifying petulance.
"I guess you missed it when I said that commutation is perfectly valid in individual cases of clear injustice."
That's a really broad and subjective statement. Who is the one that determines whether an individual case is "of clear injustice"? Is it you; the ACLU; and appellate court; or is it the prerogative of the President of the U.S.? It seems that the crux of your blog here is that you should be the one who determines when an injustice occurs, and anyone who disagrees is part of the liberal agenda or academic elite. In other words, both you and your liberal counterparts agree that commutation is valid in individual cases of clear injustice, you just disagree on what a clear injustice is. In that case you have more in common with your liberal opposition than you might realize.
"If you're saying that my op-ed in the Libby case was racist (preferring "Caucasians" on account of race), or that I am, I'd appreciate it if you'd say so directly and then sign your full name, giving your professional background that enables you to substantiate such a charge."
I didn't say anything about racism or racist. You clearly inferred that from my description of Libby being Caucasian. If I am wrong and he is not Caucasian, please let me know. I also said he is a conservative (which I assumed given the proxy measure of partisanship), a lawyer (well, disbarred lawyer), and nice (although I never met him...so I cannot attest to that). I've just been familiarizing myself with your posts recently and I see that many of your entries are ripe with racial undertones. I failed to appreciate how sensitive and defensive you immediately get when someone uses the word Caucasian in the descriptive context.
I'm not sure if your heightened sensitivity regarding race is a byproduct of the era you group up in (you are just shy of 70 yrs old if I'm correct); the fact that you comment on criminal justice, which is a racially charged subject; or someone accused you of being racist once and it really hit you deep and has affected you ever since.
To address your deeper issue of racial sensitivity, I checked the Oxford dictionary, which defines a racist as "[a] person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another[.]" As to how you 'feel' about other races, I have no idea, since that is subjective and exists within you. In my brief reading of some of your posts I wouldn't say that you have 'shown' prejudice against people of another race. Whether you 'believe' a particular race is superior to another is again something that would exist within you, and not something I could know. Again, in my brief reading of your posts I have not seen you write anything that indicates you believe such a thing. So, if your looking for affirmation from someone that you are not a racist, based on the Oxford definition and the components I can evaluate, I am happy to tell you that based on your posts that I have read, I do not believe you are a racist. I hope this makes you feel better on this lovely Saturday :)
- Will C.
To the commenter signing himself as "Will C.":
As relatively new to the site, your comments, like those of other newcomers, do not get automatically published. They get reviewed first.
You recently submitted a response containing considerable condescension, presumption, and insult (weakly dressed as formalistically polite and above-the-battle). If you care to try again without these things, it will get published. Otherwise, not.
CJLF's comment policy is here: http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2011/09/comment-on-comments.html