Sentencing Reform Urged from All Sides

This week, the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security heard testimony on mandatory minimums and sentencing reforms. While some other thing was sucking all of the media attention to the other side of the hill, the subcommittee heard some strong statements from unlikely allies on reforming sentencing laws in the U.S. But is it just more talk?

Doug Berman at Sentencing Law & Policy pointed to the testimony of Grover Norquist, the President of Americans for Tax Reform, whose trickle-down babble I usually find so unappealing. He told the committee in no uncertain terms that long sentences aren't working, and they're costing us too much:

The benefits, if any, of mandatory minimum sentences do not justify this burden to taxpayers. Illegal drug use rates are relatively stable, not shrinking.  It appears that mandatory minimums have become a sort of poor man’s Prohibition: a grossly simplistic and ineffectual government response to a problem that has been around longer than our government itself.

Also testifying was Families Against Mandatory Minimums President Julie Stewart. She told lawmakers:

“I believe as fervently as I did 15 years ago when I first testified to Congress that you should use your power to repeal mandatory minimum sentences,” Stewart told lawmakers.  “After two decades of experimenting with mandatory minimum sentencing policies, the verdict is in: mandatory minimums are a failure. They are a failure today, just as they were in 1970 when a bipartisan Congress voted to repeal the Boggs Act, which required mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. FAMM urges Congress to learn from history and repeal mandatory minimums once more,”

Watch a video of the hearings and read the submitted testimony here.

Also in international sentencing news this week: South Africa banned mandatory minimums for people convicted of committing crimes when they were under 18. Baby steps.