The title of this post is the answer I expect to hear (if there's any answer at all) from the pro-sentencing reform side when they respond to the three murders that were committed in Columbus, Ohio by a convicted drug felon out on early release because of an earlier version of "sentencing reform." They will say, I think, that we're all doing our best to release only "low level, non-violent" offenders, but mistakes cannot be avoided in human life. So, yes, something like this was bound to happen, but errors are inevitable.
My first response is: And when did you admit this a few years ago when you were pushing the FSA version of sentencing reform? Where are you admitting it now? Could someone quote for me, for example, any FAMM press release saying in decipherable language that, "yes, some violent men are going to be released, and, yes, they are going to kill other people when, under the old system, they would still have been in jail."
Should I wait?
My second response is: It's absolutely true that mistakes are inevitable.
It is for exactly that reason that Congress should have rejected the earlier version of sentencing "reform," and, even more so, should reject its present incarnation.
Since we know that error is inevitable in human affairs, the only adult questions are (1) how serious will the consequences be, and (2) who should have to bear the risk of (the inevitable) error?
The answers to both questions point unambiguously to rejecting sentencing reform.
The seriousness of murder, and still less child murder, is impossible to overstate. The death of a child is more of a tragedy than most human beings ever have to experience. And the more obvious result of the early release of hard drug traffickers, given their sky-high recidivism rate, is more drug dealing earlier, with all the harmful outcroppings it brings: Dependency, addiction, the destruction of civic life in the inner cities, and gang violence up to and including murder.
By contrast, the seriousness of keeping traffickers in for their legally imposed sentences (which, given the realities of plea bargaining, are almost always for less egregious behavior than they actually undertook) are -- well, what, exactly? More money for prisons? Yes, almost surely. And how does that stack up against child murder? Or any murder? Or overdose deaths?
The question of who should bear the risk of error answers itself. There are two candidates. If we go ahead with early release and make mistakes, we have seen who gets hurt: The innocent. The vulnerable. People who never got to make a choice.
If we go ahead and maintain the present sentencing system and make mistakes (by keeping a highly debatable number of criminals in for a highly debatable longer time than they "need" or "deserve" to be there), who gets hurt? The trafficker. The man (they are almost all men) who decided that making a fast buck was better than working an ordinary job. The fellow who thinks rules are for suckers. The guy who had a choice to make, and, usually out of greed, made the criminal one.
Who should bear the risk of error? As I say, the question answers itself.
Bill, can you provide a link and more details about the case you reference in which you perhaps seek a response from the pro-sentencing reform side? I am trying to find information on line about what you describe as "three murders that were committed in Columbus, Ohio by a convicted drug felon out on early release because of an earlier version of 'sentencing reform,' but I am struggling to identify from a google search the case you mean to reference.
Doug, It's the story I discussed and linked two posts ago, here: http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2016/01/the-end-for-sentencing-reform.html
So Doug, what's a bigger outrage--the death of these three innocent people due to a government screwup or Weldon Angelos being incarcerated for 55 years.
Thanks, Bill, I found the prior post not long after I posted my query. Got back to a full teaching schedule this week, so I have been slowed a bit on the interwebs.
On substance, Bill and federalist, my response is a lot more nuanced, I think, though I doubt you will find it satisfying:
1. This crime is horrible, and a tragedy that yet again highlights how evil some men can be in their treatment of women and children.
2. This case presents a useful and sad reminder of how even obvious signs of past violence can get missed, often repeatedly, in our criminal justice system. As noted in the article, the killer here was involved in another shooting in 1999 and nearly strangled his victim to death in 2006 before going to federal prison for crack dealing. I would be especially interested to know more about (a) his state sentencing on these priors, (b) whether and how these violent priors were raised by federal prosecutors at his initial sentencing, and (c) whether and how these violent priors were raised by federal prosecutors in response to either of his sentence reduction motions.
3. I wonder if the failure to identify this killer as still violent and treat him accordingly/effectively might have been less likely if we did not have a federal criminal justice system sometimes overloaded with local drug cases. As an answer to federalist, I consider these deaths to be a bigger tragedy/outrage than the 55 years being served by Weldon Angelos. But we ought to be trying to avoid both kinds of outrages to the greatest extent possible (do you disagree). And, its seem to me that the time federal time/money/energy spent keeping Angelos incarcerated may distract from the time/money/energy that could be better spent trying to better identify who are higher and lower risk offenders AND trying to reduce the risks through evidence-based programming of both of these examples of ineffectual government.
4. Among the reasons I am a strong support of federal sentencing reform is because I think our current laws risk too many of all of these outrages and that we can do better. That is all I see sentencing reform as hoping to achieve: trying to do a little better informed by the wisdom and experience we gain from past experiences. States like Texas and Georgia and New York, being more nimble and responsive to the big tax burdens created by corrections, have tweaked sentencing systems mostly for the better over the last decade. I am hopeful the feds will follow their lead.
5. I respect the notion that an innocent child should not bear a risk of mistake more than a felon. But, of course, this is the very same logic that leads many on the left to want to ban all guns --- they are quick to highlight after a Sandy Hook incident or even an accidental shooting studies that show much higher risks of shootings in states/homes with a higher prevalence of guns. I am not, of course, seeking to assert that a felon and a gun owner are in the same more position, rather just trying to make sure you appreciate that the very rhetoric and logic you embrace to oppose sentencing reform strikes me as parallel to the rhetoric and logic others embrace to oppose gun rights.
According to Wendell Callahan's sentencing reduction motion, the parties agreed that "his early release did not present a danger of safety to the public." Talk about a colossal mistake.
A few other interesting things I learned about Callahan. First, he was an offender in Criminal History Category VI (the highest). Second, he not only was convicted of the drug offense--he was also convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. That charge resulted from him being found in possession of a loaded firearm (and drugs) during a traffic stop. It also appears that he had prior convictions for felonious assault, improperly discharging a firearm into a habitation or school, and illegal possession of a firearm. Indeed, the defense stated at sentencing that Callahan spent most his adult life in prison. Additionally, while on pre-trial release from his federal case he was convicted in state court. That conviction involved an altercation with his girlfriend.
Zac
Zac,
Can you link to the re-sentencing pleadings in the case and the court's memorandum and order granting early release? I think it's very important to find them, so we can all see if any of the defense lawyer, prosecutor or judge knew about Callahan's violence and, if so, to what extent.
Any help you can provide will be greatly appreciated.