This article by the head of American Crossroads spills the beans about the misconceptions -- that's the polite word -- concerning sentencing reform proposals now before Congress. It starts out noting, "[T]he Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act wending its way through Congress is a Trojan Horse that would reverse decades of progress in fighting violent crime, while doing nothing to curb the expansion of criminal law into unprecedented areas."
The key paragraphs are here:
What is the rationale for abandoning such a successful strategy and putting communities and families at risk? Liberals claim these changes are necessary to ameliorate a culture of "mass incarceration" where "non-violent" offenders are caught up in a Dickensian system of impersonal, disproportionate punishment. The facts tell a different story. America's prison population has been falling steadily--itself a reflection of reduced crime. Of those serving time for drug-related offenses, 99 percent were convicted of drug trafficking, not just "harmless" possession. Drug trafficking is sustained by violence and breeds violence, from the bloody drug gangs beyond our borders to drug-related carnage in urban neighborhoods.
I might add that the federal prison population is certain to continue to fall significantly simply by virtue of the tens of thousands of retroactive sentence reductions already in the pipeline because of earlier action by the Sentencing Commission.Releasing drug dealers and other criminals early and putting them back on our streets is a recipe for disaster. One recent Department of Justice study indicated that more than 75 percent of drug offenders released early will be re-arrested within five. The timing couldn't be worse. After decades of progress, the crime rate spiked up in 2015 in America's largest cities, with murders up nearly 17 percent.
So why is Mike Mukasey now backing the SRCA forcefully?
Got me. Why is Cornyn? Why is Mike Lee? Good and smart people make mistakes. Happens all the time (which is one of many reasons to have a rule-centric system rather than a discretion-centric system).
Why is Ted Cruz now opposed to sentencing "reform" after having backed it last year? Why doesn't Obama commute Weldon Angelos?
Et cetera.
All good questions, Bill, though I have a new one for you: is it too late to take your $500 bet on the fate of Judge Weinstein's decision in th child porn case of US v RV?
As Justice Ginsburg said yesterday that Justice Scalia said of Justice Ginsburg, some very good people have some very bad ideas.
I also think that it is overly simplistic to say that someone is "for" or "against" "sentencing reform." I am in favor of some reforms. I was in favor of lowering the crack/powder ratio, for example. On a related issue, I am in favor of revamping the absurd definition of "aggravated felony" for deportation.
What I am against is measures that go much too far and are based on mystical faith in the magic of rehabilitation. We are seeing the bloody results in California.
Can I get a bet on the Duke v. Lehigh NCAA Tournament game, circa March 2012? I'll give you great odds.
When I refer to "sentencing reform" here, I'm almost always talking about something specific, to wit, the SRCA currently pending in the Senate.
I am opposed to that. However, I'm on record numerous times, including on the blog, as favoring a sweeping version of sentencing reform that would displace the remedy the Booker Court chose with the alternative favored by four Justices, including Stevens and Scalia. The alternative would keep the mandatory system Congress adopted in the SRA, but change the burden of proof for sentences above the statutory maximum to BRD.
As I've also said, I would make a down-payment on mens rea reform by eliminating prison sentences for regulatory crimes. Fines-only sentencing would more nearly approach the sort of sanction such "crimes" should provoke.