There is a two-step strategy to let more drug dealers out of prison. First, convince the people that prison overcrowding is caused by locking up large numbers of harmless, otherwise-law-abiding people for mere possession of marijuana for personal use. Second, take polls that ask people how they feel about tough sentencing for "non-violent drug offenders." When large majorities say they are against such toughness, having answered with personal-use defendants in mind, wave that around as public support for springing the dealers.
The "non-violent" part really grates on me. Can we assume that the leader of drug-dealing gang is "non-violent" merely because he has never been convicted of a violent offense? We know what happens to people who testify against gangsters.
The Foundation for Safeguarding Justice is an organization started by the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys. The federal prosecutors know who they are really seeking prison sentences for, and they are justifiably horrified at proposals based on false premises. They commissioned a survey that asks people how they feel about going soft on drug traffickers rather than using the misleading term "non-violent drug offender."
It is not hard to guess the results of the change when the wording reflects the real issue of traffickers in "hard" drugs.
"When thinking about how the federal government deals with convicted defendants, would you support or oppose a proposal to reduce penalties for traffickers in heroin, fentanyl, and similar drugs?"
Support 18% Oppose 74% Duh 9%
"In general, do you think that the federal government is too tough, not tough enough, or about right in its handling of drug trafficking?"
Too tough 14% Not tough enough 51% About right 25% Duh 9%
Given that there are no proposals to toughen further under active consideration, that is 76-14 in favor of the status quo versus softening.
The full poll is here.
Anyone who wants to say that sentencing of traffickers in hard drugs is not the real issue, please cite the provision of pending "reform" legislation that excludes them.
Kent, how would you characterize Alice Johnson (granted clemency by Prez Trump) or Cynthia Shank (whose case is the subject of a new HBO doc)? Cynthia's case is discussed in this Newsweek piece:
https://www.newsweek.com/2018/10/19/sentence-hbo-mandatory-minimum-documentary-1160686.html
Ms. Johnson and Ms Shank are the types of "traffickers in hard drugs" that I tend to think about when being in favor of reform. How do you think a poll would come out if their cases were presented to respondents before being asked about whether they support or oppose reforms?
I am not assailing your concern about polls that portray all drug offenders as sympathetic; the reality is that drug offenders are not a one-size-fits-all lot. But federal mandatory minimums take a one-size-fits-all approach, and does so based on an often poor metric (drug weight).
Doug, you ask me to characterize a case I am not familiar with. No, I am not going to do that. That would require researching it, and that would require more time than I wish to spend on this thread. I would not even consider just reading a Newsweek article about an HBO "documentary" and assuming that either is a fair characterization of the case. Given the current state of American news and infotainment media, that would be absurd.
So -- purely for the sake of this discussion -- let us assume that this is a case where the mandatory minimum law was excessively harsh. I do not question that such cases exist.
I am well aware that mandatory minimum laws are blunt instruments. I have said many times on this blog that if we had a functioning system of mandatory guidelines we could dispense with mandatory minimums.
The Booker problem could have been and should have been fixed by making all the range-determinative facts ones that are suitable for jury determination, making facts that judges are better suited to decide (e.g., whether a crime is more egregious than typical for its category) factors only for discretionary choice within the range, and then offering the defendant jury fact-finding concurrent with guilt determination for any sentencing range fact he disputes.
Nobody seems interested in more finely tailoring the system to fit the crime and the defendant's criminal history. "Reform" has become a euphemism for throwing open the gates indiscriminately. The misrepresented Faux Pas Act is a perfect example. It is very hard to believe that any more than a handful of the Republicans who voted for this bill in the House really knew what they were voting for.
A few well-publicized atypical cases do not provide a reason for throwing out the baby with the bathwater. For the moment, they can be handled by executive clemency if necessary. Until we have reformers who are interested in actually tailoring sentences to crimes rather than simply reducing prison population regardless of the cost to future victims, blocking any legislation is probably the best we can do.
Who are the “future victims” of drug offenses that involve a willing buyer and seller? Rather than engage with your unwillingness to explore the (extreme?) cases that drive disaffinity for MM reform, I will respond by just seeking your accounting for the “future victims” of drug offenses. When we focus on violent crimes, I understand the notion of “future victims,” but insincery seem to better understand who these are in the drug crime arena.
Center for Security Policy: NAAUSA President Steve Cook on Dangerous Aspects of Criminal Reform
And here is a link showing all the "future victims" of alcohol: https://www.alcoholrehabguide.org/alcohol/crimes/
As we saw 100 years ago, prohibition can turn those involved with prohibited substances more violent and can turn otherwise honest people into criminals. Seems like the same basic story Steve Cook is telling.
I make this point not to advocate for drug legalization, but rather to highlight that advocate for and against reform are often talking past each other while both have support of polling when extremes are the focal point of questions to the general public.
I don't think my 10/12 @9:07 can be accurately characterized as "talking past." I propose a compromise that takes into account the better arguments against mandatory minimums.
Kent, I consider you a more responsible voice in these kinds of conversations, so I did not have you in mind when stating that advocates "for and against reform are often talking past each other."
For that very reason, I would be especially interested in your thoughts/reactions to the HBO movie "The Sentence." I fear the case profiled is not that atypical (especially with respect to female drug offenders), but it is a notable example of a case ultimately "handled by executive clemency."