I've argued that America has an under-incarceration problem. Criminals whose records clearly show they should be in jail have, instead, been released and are on the streets committing violent crimes, including some very bloody, high-profile ones.
But hey, look, as the anonymous Republican Senate aide said, we can't get everything right. Boys will be boys! If police officers get shot, there's really nothing to see, folks. Move along.Here's another example. Samuel Harviley, paroled from prison less than three months ago, is being held without bond for shooting an off-duty Chicago police officer outside his home earlier this week. In withholding bond, the local judge said that Harviley "poses an extreme danger to the rest of us out in public."
Indeed, he does. And he did three months ago when he was released early from jail.
Harviley was paroled from state prison on New Year's Eve after serving four years of a nine-year sentence for a 2011 carjacking, an inherently dangerous crime. A nine year sentence is meaningless if it can be completed in four. Harviley's early release always posed a danger to the community. Now, it has resulted in the shooting of a police officer.
Bill: You are right to note problems with some dangerous folks being let out of prison too early, but this is DIRECTLY a result of sentencing laws that are often too quick to send not-so-dangerous persons to prison for too long:
1. Prisons, because they are overcrowded and understaffed, generally make people sent there more dangerous, not less. So if a person is not so dangerous, they ought not be sent there in the first place for too long.
2. If we keep feeding too many not so dangerous persons into prison, we need to let out dangerous persons already there to make room. Overcrowded federal prisons are among the reasons that we got the sentencing reductions and release of Wendell Callahan, your favorite posterchild.
Though you are eager to turn tragedies like these into talking points, smart folks on your side like Mike Lee and Mike Mukasey and Chuck Grassley and others have come to realize these kinds of stories provide still MORE reasons for why we need federal sentencing reforms to improve a broken system that has so many costs and can be refined to enhance public safety effectively and efficiently.
No, releasing dangerous criminals too early is a result of foolhardy, short-sighted, naïve, sometimes corrupt and often politically-driven thinking that promoted that self-same early release as a good unto itself. See, e.g., Wendell Callahan.
-- You say, we "are often too quick to send not-so-dangerous persons to prison for too long."
There is almost nothing "quick" about the criminal justice system, and the reality of it is that, in the great majority of instances, lawbreakers are given one chance after to next to stay clear of prison before they finally get sent there. Our occasional commenter mjs is excellent in describing that situation.
-- You say (emphasis added): "Prisons, because they are overcrowded and understaffed, GENERALLY make people sent there more dangerous, not less."
Nope. If that were true, the recidivism rate would be a horrifying 100%, rather than a merely awful 77% (for states) or a really bad 49% (for the feds).
Of course it is true that, in individual instances, some prisoners will get worse while incarcerated. But the fact that we have had massively less crime in the era of massively more prison is irrefutable proof that, GENERALLY, prison helps to reduce crime, not create it. The numbers are overwhelming.
2. You say, "If we keep feeding too many not so dangerous persons into prison, we need to let out dangerous persons already there to make room."
That assumes a zero sum game. But as we all know, when it comes to government spending, it's the OPPOSITE of a zero sum game. Criminal justice system spending has increased and will continue to increase whether or not we have sentencing reform. I will make you my traditional $500 bet on that. Are we on?
And I would note that violent crime has decreased, and decreased by huge amounts, during the very years you say we were overlooking it in order to be able to cram prisons with non-violent inmates.
Again, the numbers are irrefutable proof against your argument.
The obvious answer, then and now, is building more prisons. Prisons keep our citizens safer; there is simply no denying this fact with the cratering crime numbers over the last 25 years being what they are.
-- You say, "Though you are eager to turn tragedies like these into talking points..."
What I'm eager to do, and will continue doing, is bring forth examples that the people on your side like to sweep under the rug. I don't know why pulling back the rug would be considered wrong. Aren't the people on your side constantly asking for "evidence-based" sentencing?
Fine. Here's some evidence. His name is Wendell Callahan, released courtesy of specific sentencing reform that you specifically backed.
"...smart folks on your side like Mike Lee and Mike Mukasey and Chuck Grassley and others have come to realize these kinds of stories provide still MORE reasons for why we need federal sentencing reforms to improve a broken system..."
1. A system that so massively reduces crime can be called many things. "Broken" is not one of them. (If you want a broken system, look at the police systems in Chicago, St. Louis and Baltimore, where intimidation by BLM and its political allies has helped balloon the murder rate).
2. What sentencing reformers do with the Callahan story is ignore or dismiss it, like the notorious (and understandably anonymous) "boys-will-be-boys" Senate aide. Thus, your take on it is 100% wrong. They don't use that episode to advance their ideal; they say their ideas must go forward ANYWAY despite a few, ummmmmmmm, hiccups.
P.S. I have never so much as met Grassley. I have met Mike Lee once; perfectly pleasant man, but ideological. I am very casual friends with the great Michael Mukasey, the model for what this Administration's AG's should be but aren't.
That said, smart and good people make mistakes all the time. Why, take yourself for example....................
Some quick responses and questions:
1. Can you provide some specific examples of an early release that is the result of "sometimes corrupt" work by prosecutors or judges?
2. Mandatory minimums drug sentencing in the federal system has certainly quickened the process of convictions and the imposition of long sentences (pleas are up as are long mandatories). The SRCA is trying to help on this front.
3. The formal recidivism rate is not 100% mostly because as you often ephasize we do not catch everyone who commits post-offense crimes, we do provide some useful in-prison treatments to some whose crimes are the result of untreated mental illness and drug problems, and we sometimes effectively incapacitate folks after release via non-prison measures. The SRCA is trying to help on these fronts.
4. If you recognize that "it is true that, in individual instances, some prisoners will get worse while incarcerated," would you also recognize that we might be wise to try to avoid sentencing those people to prison? The SRCA is trying to help on this front.
5. You say, "Criminal justice system spending has increased and will continue to increase whether or not we have sentencing reform." The SRCA is trying to help on this front, but as a federal big-government guy I suppose I am not surprised you do not care about this.
6. You say "The obvious answer, then and now, is building more prisons." Again, your big-govt commitment is so very clear: Would you say when folks complain that increases in federal welfare spending has not fixed povery that the "obvious answer, then and now, is spending more on welfare. After all, giving people money makes them less poor, so "there is simply no denying this fact."
7. You say "What I'm eager to do, and will continue doing, is bring forth examples that the people on your side like to sweep under the rug. I don't know why pulling back the rug would be considered wrong." Pulling back the rug is not wrong, and that is why I continue to try to highlight how similar your views here are to all big government fans who think government works great and would work even greater if we throw more and more taxpayer money at problems with no real review or accountability.
8. I agree people makes mistakes all the time, myself include. Perhaps my biggest mistake was thinking I could help you see how your federal crime and punishment "solutions" is big-government commitment comparable to how the Clintons/Obama wants to "solve" health care problems and how Sanders wants to "solve" college debt problems.
-- I don't think you typed "big government" enough. Since, as is now clear, typing "big government" solves the problem (whatever the problem is), let me try to help:
Big government!!!
Big government!!!
Big government!!!
OK, that should do it.
-- Public spending on prison is the opposite of government spending on welfare. Prison REDUCES crime (at this point, an incontestable proposition) by incapacitating some criminals and deterring others. Welfare INCREASES the pathologies that create poverty by fanning the idea that someone else (the taxpayers) is responsible for your life, your decisions and your acts.
P.S. Just as an aside, I'd love to see evidence to support your claim that, "mandatory minimums drug sentencing in the federal system has certainly quickened the process of convictions..."
Said evidence would involve (a) a showing that there is, in fact, less time between charge and conviction than there was in prior year X, and (b) a showing that the acceleration was CAUSED by mandatory minimums.
I have severe doubts you'll show even (a), or come close, much less (b). But I'll be happy to stand corrected when actual evidence shows up.
P.P.S. People plead guilty now for the same reason they did when I was an AUSA: They're ice cold on the evidence, and want to get credit for acceptance of responsibility. It's as simple as that. Go down to district court and see for yourself.
The notion that innocent people plead guilty to drug crimes in federal court is just so much defense bar fiction. It has the same degree of truthfulness as defense counsel's equally indignant assertion that no danger to the public was posed by releasing Wendell Callahan.
P.P.P.S. You also asked whether I could put forth an example of "sometimes corrupt work by prosecutors or judges."
Sure. The case that got Judge Hastings, a big sentencing reform backer, impeached.
Or Operation Greylord, where Chicago defense counsel were in what amounted to an open-air market, paying off for light sentences, dismissals of counts or outright acquittals.
Bill,
1. modern prisons contribute significantly to the pathologies and conditions that breed crime --- lack of family structure, lack of education, lack of postive social structure, lack of non-crime-prone friends, lack of respect for authority, and lack of connection to people who see and model the benefits of honest work. The parallels are profound, but like the big government left does not want to acknowledge that government can make some problems worse, so too does the big government right not want to appreciate this obvious point. In all other non-repressive modern nations, prison rates and crime rates are much lower than in the US.
2. In 1985, before the mandatory USSC guidelines and MMs were fully functional, there were roughly 20,000 federal defendants convicted and sentenced to prison (and I believe roughy 25% were convicted via trial). By FY 2003, before Blakely and Booker started disrupting a mandatory system, there were over 60,000 federal defendants convicted and sentenced to prison and only about 4% of this group went to trial. I suppose I should celebrate government growth and efficiency here, but it comes at the expense of liberty and it has not diminished drug problems.
3. I am certain very few people plead guilty who are entirely innocent, but many get sentenced for lots of stuff they were acquitted upon or that was not formally charged because a prosecutor knew he could not carry the point BRD with a jury. I know you like giving big govt federal prosecutors unchecked power because you are so confident they will use it wisely. Me, I am not so sure when these prosecutors never need to explain or justify why they continue to support govt growth in this arena.
And as for your P.P.P.S. Do you have any examples that are not 30 years old?
I can give you lots and lots more recent examples of federal prosecutors run amok..... E.g., Ted Stevens prosecution, NO bridge shooting prosecution....
Doug --
I would think that when America's third largest city has its entire criminal justice system on sale to the highest defense bar bidder, that would be example enough, for 30 years or 300 years. I mean, yikes.
And if it's going on in Chicago, what do you think the chances are that it's NOT going on, to some degree at least, in Baltimore, Atlanta, Patterson, St. Louis, Oakland, Houston, New Orleans, etc., etc.?
Let me put that another way: What are the chances that I'll be buying a $350,000 a place seating at George Clooney's Hollywood mansion for a Hillary fundraiser?
"[M]odern prisons contribute significantly to the pathologies and conditions that breed crime --- lack of family structure, lack of education, lack of positive social structure, lack of non-crime-prone friends, lack of respect for authority, and lack of connection to people who see and model the benefits of honest work."
Every pathology you named existed BEFORE THE FELLOW WENT TO PRISON TO BEGIN WITH. By the time defendants got to me -- generally in their mid-twenties to mid-thirties -- it was already too late.
Those of us who've been pushing for strong, two-parent families that teach and demand values, accountability, respect and discipline from children have been, and are, slammed by your side as a bunch of stuffed suit, Puritanical, prudish, Fifties-throwback jerks who should get with it.
Sorry, but since that's been the Left's mantra for a half century, they're not going to be able to walk away from it today and then -- this is rich -- put the blame on prison, which enters the picture far too late to change the way a person fundamentally thinks.
Big government can't do that, which is the reason rehab fails way more than it succeeds.
"The parallels are profound, but like the big government left does not want to acknowledge that government can make some problems worse."
Reducing crime by 50% is hardly making a problem worse.
By contrast, creating generations of welfare dependency and hopelessness is absolutely making a problem worse.
Lesson: Government should finance those functions that have proved they work (incarceration), and quit financing the ones that have proved they fail (generations of welfare).
Again, Bill, you see what you want to see. Thanks to the modern welfare state in the US, the life expectancy rates for the poor have increased and their basic standing of living in the US is much higher than in nations without welfare. This is not my area of specialty, but I know there are plenty of folks on the left who will be quick to say welfare works and only stops working when we stop funding it fully. Similarly, you say incarceration works and only stops working when we go soft. And, of course, prison has generational effects, too.
If you really think we should quit financing govt programs that fail, you ought to join my campaign to end marijuana prohibition and other federal investments in the drug war. What success have we seen there? Unless you see value in the increased crime that the drug war kicked off in the 1970s and 1980s (just as federal alcohol prohibition drove up crime two generations earlier).
I am done here because, like most big government past and current employees, I fear you will always be too much of an insider to seriously consider the possibility you sometimes may have made matters worse not better in how you spent taxpayer resources.
Doug --
Someone needs to tell Chuck Grassley that I'm an insider. Mike Lee and John Cornyn, too.
Well, moving right along, it just occurred to me that, while you're a government employee and have been for years (the great state of Ohio), I work for a private employer (Georgetown Law) and haven't been in the US Attorney's Office since the last century.
Not that it makes a difference in either of our cases. My view of things is shaped by my independent evaluation, as is your different view of things. I doubt you actually think I have my opinions because of where I worked when I was young.
I learned plenty of stuff by being a federal prosecutor, you bet (e.g., defense counsel's unblinking willingness to say stuff they didn't and couldn't possibly believe), but I am just as skeptical of the current DOJ as you are, albeit for (some) different reasons.
Fair points about your no-longer-insider status, Bill, though I would likely call anyone who ever worked in the White House to be a life-long insider.
On a related front, though I am sure your views are shaped by your " independent evaluation," I do think many of your opinions are profoundly shaped by "where [you] worked when [you were] young." I say that because I think this is true of most smart/wise folks: their experiences, good and bad, inform their opinions in all sorts of way.
Gosh knows my experiences clerking on the Second Circuit for two years for two different judges still greatly informs my perspectives on and opinion of federal circuit court jurisprudence --- even though those experiences took place in the mid 1990s. Similarly, my experiences as a junior associate at a big NYC law firm in the late 1990s for just two year still greatly informs my perspective of the legal profession and big firm practice. (Candidly, I would be very surprised if you really mean to claim that 25+ years working for DOJ did not still impact your opinions now, at least with respect to the ethical compass of some federal defense attorneys.)