Sentencing reform is a trendy topic among those concerned with criminal justice policy. It is a righteous cause if for no other reason than there is always room for improvement in the criminal justice system. But before we make wholesale changes in sentencing policy by abolishing mandatory sentences or abandoning incarceration in favor of alternative programs, we should give full and careful consideration to the risks to our communities and citizens, and thoroughly vet the alternatives.
Right now, legislators are rushing to overhaul sentencing policy, the Obama administration is advancing an unprecedented system of clemency for federal inmates, and commentary is buzzing with the conviction that the high rate of incarceration in the United States is a stain on our national reputation -- all without apparent consideration of the consequences.
<< News Scan | Main | Why Do "Scholarly" Articles Always Favor the Defense? >>
Not Quite the Last Man
Slate Magazine recently profiled my opposition to mass sentencing reduction (smoothly labeled "sentencing reform" by its backers) with an insightful article by Mark Obbie titled, "Last Man Standing."
I appreciate the bold portrayal, but, as former Deputy Attorney General George Terwilliger's op-ed today in the National Journal shows, I have company. Mr. Terwilliger's piece begins:
As Mr. Terwilliger knows, "abolishing mandatory sentences or abandoning incarceration" is not on the table. If any bipartisan bill emerges in Congress, it is likely to modestly reduce drug penalties for only the least culpable defendants. But that's not a very compelling talking point if your objective is to frighten people.