The national media have been quite subdued in reporting the murders of three African Americans in Columbus, Ohio by Wendell Callahan. Years before, Callahan, a man with a violent past, had been sentenced to federal prison for trafficking crack cocaine. He was released four years early because of a sentencing "reform" bill Congress passed in 2010. But for the early release, his three victims -- a mother and two daughters, aged 10 and 7 -- would be alive today. See my post here.
Put another way, this was preventable murder. And prevention was easy. All we had to do was keep a violent man trafficking hard drugs in prison for his original sentence.
Preventable murder is about as odious a thing as one can imagine. You would think the usual cadres of criminal justice protesters would be up in arms. Where's Black Lives Matter, now that three black lives have been thrown away courtesy of a law that was passed as the remedy for supposed injustice? I haven't heard a peep. Maybe some black lives matter more than others.
Fortunately, Debra Saunders of SFGate is paying attention.
As Ms. Saunders notes:
[Sen. Ted] Cruz explained to his colleagues that he opposed the [present proposal, the SRCA] for two reasons -- it would reduce sentences for "violent criminals" (read: drug dealers with guns) and also would do so retroactively. "Do we want to focus on disparities of nonviolent drug offenders or do we want to be releasing violent criminals?" Cruz asked. He also warned that if an inmate released by reforms ever hurt anyone, lawmakers "can fully expect to be held accountable" by voters.Cruz's warning turned out to be prescient. This month, a former federal crack offender was arrested for stabbing to death his former girlfriend, Erveena Hammonds, 32, and her daughters Breya Hammonds, 7, and Anaesia Green, 10, in Ohio. The Columbus Dispatch reported that accused killer Wendell Louis Callahan had his prison sentence reduced because of reforms designed to reduce the sentencing disparity between federal crack and cocaine offenses. "Three people, including two children, are dead today because of early release from a duly imposed, lawful and fully deserved federal drug trafficking sentence," an outraged Georgetown law professor, William Otis, wrote on the Crime and Consequences blog. Politico reported that GOP opponents seized upon the crime in an effort to derail the Grassley bill.
It's all true. Those so often accused of ignoring data "seized upon" data. Can you imagine?
The bill's biggest hurdle is the 2016 presidential race. Before Cruz voted against the Grassley bill, Donald Trump became the GOP front-runner with his tough talk and disdain for mercy. After the bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, terrorists attacked in Paris, then in San Bernardino. In this uncertain election year, the public craves safety.
I agree in part and disagree in part. I don't think the presidential race is the driver of the opposition to sentencing reform. There are other, more important factors here. Principal among them is the fact that the tougher, determinate sentencing system we have had for a quarter century has worked. Crime rates are down by half. Indeed, determinate sentencing, along with more police and more targeted and proactive policing, are among the most effective public policy accomplishments of the last several decades.
One of the other main drivers of opposition to the SRCA is its backers' obstinate resistance to mens rea reform. It strikes quite a few people, me included, as suspicious to be lectured that we need to go easier on drug traffickers, but continue to be tough on businessmen and property owners who had no reason to know their activities were wrong, much less criminal.
And mercy has its place. No serious person doubts this. But the Constitution already provides for it, and has from the Founding.
Some reformers will tell you off the record that when you let people out of prison to rebalance sentences, it's inevitable some will re-offend. They don't understand that Hammonds and her children may be the Laquan McDonalds of sentencing reform.
I dearly, dearly wish I had written that last sentence.
Obama should direct his Justice Department to investigate Callahan's release to prevent another tragedy. If reformers instead choose to circle the wagons, then their crusade will fail.
And will deserve to fail.
I do not agree with Debra Saunders in all respects, but by understanding the significance of the Callahan early relese/triple murder scandal, and writing about it in a widely read publication, she has performed an invaluable public service.
Leave a comment