posted August 13, 2004
In response to "Criminal Sentencing Policy and Mandatory Minimum Sentences" by U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee Sandy Mattice in the August 11 edition of “The Chattanoogan.com”, I submit the following:
Recently, I read the op-ed piece, “Criminal Sentencing Policy and Mandatory Minimum Sentences,” and I am duty bound to respond…on behalf of the thousands and thousands of federal prisoners, their families and friends.
I, for one, and most of the advocates for reform are not working for the release of sex predators or violent criminals. And, I do not support “throw open the gates and let’em all out”. That is certainly not the case...far from it. I am in favor of "earned release" for qualifying non-violent offenders...not for those criminals who have committed "particularly heinous and dangerous crimes."
It is said that mandatory minimums are successful in “making would-be offenders think twice about risking a long prison sentence.” Really? Then why do we have over 180,000 federal prisoners and why do that figure increase monthly? It seems to me that mandatory minimums are not meeting the challenge of deterring others from committing crimes. Not if we are the largest jailer in the world! Someone is arrested for drug offenses every 28 seconds. Talk about deterrence. I think not.
The ABA contends that mandatory minimums are not cost-effective. We spend over $28,000 per year per prisoner. Supervised release would cost between $2,000 and $5,000 per year per prisoner PLUS those men and women would be contributing to the tax coffers. I believe that the American Bar Association is correct in stating that mandatory minimums are not cost-effective and those numbers prove the ABA’s correctness.
I've been told that offenders can avoid a mandatory sentence by cooperating with law enforcement’s investigation or prosecution of another offender. Not, if the offender has no names or facts to give to the law authorities…not if the offender is the low man (or woman) on the chain…not if the offender’s name is the one the “big boys” have used when negotiating their sentences and thus all the names that he/she might give have already been caught by law enforcement. Thus, many, if not most, of our federal prisoners are the first time offenders (85% of federal prisoners are non-violent offenders), and the drug lords are back on the streets. I fail to see the justice in the Justice Department.
Non-violent drug offenders’ should be exempted from mandatory minimum sentences and instead be given treatment not incarceration. Study after study proves that treatment is far more effective and efficient than incarceration. Studies also show that after 18 months incarceration only makes for better criminals…and does nothing more. Could it be that mandatory minimums are making more criminals rather than lessening the number?
The Federal Prison Project’s Literacy, Education, and Rehabilitation Act (LERA) is an instrument that will insure that the ABA’s recommendations will work. According to the provisions of HR 4572, only prisoners who are preparing with GED/vocational/college degree programs to reenter society with the necessary skills to be successful, who can demonstrate that they are dependable, trustworthy and responsible, and who have followed the rules of the facility are eligible for an additional 60 days of “good time” for each year served. It is a recognized truth that history predicts the future…and so I say, the work records and the absence of “hits” for infractions while in prison predict the success the prisoner will experience “on the streets”. Therefore, it is undoubtedly true that such early release will work.
It is said that tough but fair sentences are taking habitual lawbreakers off the street. We "misguided" reformers are not talking about habitual criminals…no, we’re talking about first time offenders. I read that mandatory minimums are locking up the most dangerous criminals among us. We’re not talking about the most dangerous criminals…no, we’re talking about non-violent offenders. The big guys at the top of the chain are free to ply their trade on the streets. It’s the little guys who are in prison. Who is "misguided"?
Yes, I say that it is time to become “smart on crime” because, even though some who do not agree, “tough on crime” has failed. I say failure because of the huge BOP budget is draining badly needed tax dollars from our schools, teachers’ salaries, prescription medicines for the elderly and protective equipment for our men and women in Iraq. The war on drugs is a failure because we are putting the children of incarcerated parents on the path toward becoming prisoners themselves. It’s a failure because thousands and thousands of young people’s lives have been ruined…and we have taken away their hopes.
President Bush, in his State of the Union address, called for the United States to become the land of second chance. LERA would go a long way toward making that a reality.
Lawrence J. Schulenberg
(author of Dead At The Desk and To Catch The Snowflakes)
Council Bluffs, IA
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |