"Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
The New York Times has a sad article about the costs of mandatory sentencing, beginning with the case of Stephanie George.
George was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Everyone agrees that, at best, she was a bit player joined to the distribution by the behavior of her child's father. So how did she end up with a life sentence? How did it happen that her children have grown up without their mother?
Whatever the truth of the testimony against her, it certainly benefited the other defendants. Providing evidence to the prosecution is one of the few ways to avoid a mandatory sentence. Because the government formally credited the other defendants with “substantial assistance,” their sentences were all reduced to less than 15 years. Even though Mr. Dickey was the leader of the enterprise and had a much longer criminal record than Ms. George, he was freed five years ago.
Looking back on the case, Judge Vinson said such disparate treatment is unfortunately all too common. The judge, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan who is hardly known for liberalism (last year he ruled that the Obama administration’s entire health care act was unconstitutional), says he still regrets the sentence he had to impose on Ms. George because of a formula dictated by the amount of cocaine in the lockbox and her previous criminal record.
“She was not a major participant by any means, but the problem in these cases is that the people who can offer the most help to the government are the most culpable,” Judge Vinson said recently. “So they get reduced sentences while the small fry, the little workers who don’t have that information, get the mandatory sentences.
“The punishment is supposed to fit the crime, but when a legislative body says this is going to be the sentence no matter what other factors there are, that’s draconian in every sense of the word. Mandatory sentences breed injustice.”
The article is well worth a read. It shows how the country's massive increase in prison population has -- at least initially -- led to a decrease in crime. But it looks at how those benefits have decreasing marginal utility and come at a rather significant cost to the families of those who are sent away. It also shows how incarceration can lead to increased hardening of the convict.
Some changes are being made:
These changes are starting to be made in places. Sentences for some drug crimes have been eased at the federal level and in states like New York, Kentucky and Texas. Judges in Ohio and South Carolina have been given more sentencing discretion. Californians voted in November to soften their state’s “three strikes” law to focus only on serious or violent third offenses. The use of parole has been expanded in Louisiana and Mississippi. The United States Supreme Court has banned life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders.
Stopping crime in a humane fashion is a difficult balance to strike. I'm glad that some people are working on it.
- Comment (39)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (14)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
It's a vicious cycle isn't it? Liberal doesn't do job citing socio-economic justice. Politicians try to fix. Cure almost as bad as problem. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Ad Naseum.
Light sentancing begets mandatory sentances.
Grads who can't read begets state testing.
If everyone just did what was expected from them in the first place...
Sep '12
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
For every good judge with as much common sense as Judge Vinson, there are also judges who have no common sense and where mandatory sentences don't exist, so criminals get a slap on the hand and go free. Unfortunately, common sense amongst judges and legislators isn't very common.
Jul '11
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
Perhaps all problems don't need to be fixed - such as under sentencing? The way to fix issues like under sentencing is to replace the Judges that under sentence not by forcing more punishment.
Apr '11
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
All of this would be solved if instead of giving out prison sentences we simply instituted a system of corporal punishment for non-violent crimes, such as possession and distribution of narcotics. Sending people to jail is costly and there is very little I have seen in the way of evidence that you are rehabilitating these people.
Once people go to jail they also loose any legitimate jobs they may have had, and their legitimate job skills wane. Thus once released they are less able to obtain gainful employment.
Caning a criminal 20 times imposes a very harsh and easily repeatable punishment, that does not in any way remove the offender from society. If the punishment is public too, it can add a much needed element of shame. The sentence will take only 30 minutes to execute and the total cost will be what ever the hourly wages of those employed to carry out the sentence. I think this would also be very effective in the case of juvenile offenders.
Edited on December 12, 2012 at 5:12pmMay '10
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
Mandatory sentences were a response to a crime problem that many folks today can't appreciate. I promise you that you do not want to go back to the old days on this one.
Also keep in mind that Federal judges, at least, have life tenure. You can't just replace them if you think they're not giving out harsh enough sentences.
If there's a way to tweak the laws to reduce these kinds of injustices, I'd be open to suggestions, but as a general matter, my response to the headline of Mollie's post is: "But not as much as under-sentencing."
Edited on December 12, 2012 at 5:48pmJul '11
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
How would unjustly mandatory caning be better than unjustly mandatory detention?
This would also go away if drugs were legalized.
The punishment and the crime are irrelevant in this discussion (though not in general). The point is the injustice of mandatory sentencing.
May '11
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
Or just stop criminalizing private activity between consenting adults, like prostitution and drug sales.
Imagine if law enforcement could just focus on violence/theft/fraud. We're fine with mandatory sentencing for those sorts of things.
She's in prison for giving other people something they want. How does that make sense?
Edited on December 12, 2012 at 5:55pmJul '11
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
PJ
Also keep in mind that Federal judges, at least, have life tenure. You can't just replace them if you think they're not giving out harsh enough sentences.Mandatory sentences were a response to a crime problem that many folks today can't appreciate. I promise you that you do not want to go back to the old days on this one.
If there's a way to tweak the laws to reduce these kinds of injustices, I'd be open to suggestions, but as a general matter, my response to the headline of Mollie's post is: "But not as much as under-sentencing." · 5 minutes ago
Edited 2 minutes ago
PJ - I will take my chances over your word, thank you.
Whatever happened to letting 100 guilty people go free over incarcerating one innocent person?
Given the choose, I choose liberty over "safety".
May '10
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
The real story behind mandatory sentencing is the influence of the public sector unions. It is in fact a case study that should be used more often as it confounds the typical liberal who is typically anti-prison and pro-union.
It's not at all clear that sentencing drove down crimes rates as other anti-crime initiatives are also present in the data. Nor is the long term effect on crime of hardening that many more citizens who receive a superb post-secondary education is sociopathy while institutionalized.
Jul '11
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
Trace - I admit I am completely ignorant to this relationship. Can you elaborate?
Apr '11
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
Trace: The real story behind mandatory sentencing is the influence of the public sector unions. It is in fact a case study that should be used more often as it confounds the typical liberal who is typically anti-prison and pro-union.
It's not at all clear that sentencing drove down crimes rates as other anti-crime initiatives are also present in the data. Nor is the long term effect on crime of hardening that many more citizens who receive a superb post-secondary education is sociopathy while institutionalized. · 27 minutes ago
I'm in the same boat as Barkha. It's a fascinating point, but I would like to see some back-up on that before I repeat it to my progressive friends.
May '10
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
Hi Barkha -- The prison guard unions have pushed most of the mandatory sentencing laws and in the process consolidated and increased their power over any revision to the status quo. The infamous three strikes law in California is a perfect case in point. This has of course resulted in massive amounts of prison construction and massive hiring of prison guards. A decent breakdown of the dilemma is available here.
This is a very substantial contributor to the bankrupting of the state and in this conundrum they have both the left and the right tied in knots. We have schools that look like prisons and prisons that look like schools and massive public sector unions with massive pensions presiding over both.
Edited on December 12, 2012 at 6:50pmApr '11
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
Thanks! That's what I need.
May '10
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
And to be perfectly fair, there is also a healthy dose of crony capitalism emerging in the mix as well as private prison companies are taking an increasing share of the pie.
Jul '11
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
We imprison more people than China, despite them having 1 billion more citizens than us. How's that for statistics?
Jul '11
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
The laws are made to keep the man down!
Jul '11
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
Or woman in this case...
Apr '11
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
Barkha Herman
How would unjustly mandatory caning be better than unjustly mandatory detention?
This would also go away if drugs were legalized.
The punishment and the crime are irrelevant in this discussion (though not in general). The point is the injustice of mandatory sentencing. · 1 hour ago
I disagree.
The long term consequences of caning are fewer than jail. So even if you are unfair with it there will be less damage done. Do you think this woman will become a repeat offender ? One afternoon of caning and she is done and free. She made a terrible mistake and she only pays for it once with caning. She can then move on and sin no more.
We can always paralyze ourselves with matters of what is just, but the law exists to create order more than it does to give us justice.
Apr '11
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
China executes more people than us. Is that better?
May '10
Re: "Mandatory Sentences Breed Injustice."
The laws are made to keep the union dues up!