Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder will propose reduced
sentences for certain low-level drug offenders. The proposal is expected to be
approved and is predicted to affect 70 percent of drug offenders. The Justice
Department says this will reduce the federal prison population by about 6550
inmates over the next five years and reduce the average sentence of a drug trafficking
offender by 11 months.
Read more specifics in the article here.
 |
| Reuters |
This is an expansion of Holder’s initiative to reform the
treatment of drug offenders in the justice system. In August, Holder decried
the injustice of mandatory minimum sentences and announced that low-level,
nonviolent drug offenders without gang or cartel ties would not be subject to
these mandatory sentences. Holder also made a point in August to note that
America has incarcerated the largest proportion of its population out of any
country in the world.
As in August, Holder has received mixed reactions. Civil
liberties groups are generally supportive while others are skeptical of the
attempts to reform the criminal justice system.
If you’re interested in the issue, the Atlantic has some
great coverage of federal prison issues here and here.
It is my personal opinion that draconian punishment
exacerbates the root of crime problems because it frankly isn't a deterrent to
committing crimes. It must also be noted that a “low-level drug offense” on your
record automatically closes the door for even productive reformative
opportunities like more job prospects. I’m interested in the direction of this
change. Holder seems to be pushing the initiative more, but the data will have
to speak for itself later on. What are your thoughts on the nature of the
prison system? Justice system? Reform?
5 comments:
There are several thought-provoking statistics in the Washington Post article, but the one that most catches my attention is the budget for U.S. prisons. According to this article, $83 billion is spent each year on corrections; one quarter of the Justice Department’s annual budget, or $6.4 billion, is also spent to maintain prisons. The statistic proclaiming that we are 5 percent of the world’s population but imprison a quarter of the world’s prisoners adds to the power of the finances. Either our law enforcement is effectively imprisoning those who break laws or we have conditions that need to be reevaluated.
The Reuters article points out that the “war on drugs” is entering its fifth decade, yet its effectiveness has been questionable. From the sound of the Washington Post article, it sounds like the war on drugs has captured a lot of small drug criminals while allowing the real sources of the problem, drug lords and cartels, to continue their operations. I recognize that there is a reason this is the case; large-scale drug operations are often internationally involved and have mastered the art of staying hidden. However, I’m wondering if the money spent on imprisoning criminals who face smaller drug charges could be better spent targeting large-scale cartels.
In all, I believe that enforcement must exist behind every law. Yet, at the same time, these articles made me question effectiveness. It would likely vary from person to person, but will a stint in America’s current prison system (a) deter someone from committing a drug crime or (b) prevent them from doing it again? I am interested in reform, whether it be through a shorter sentence to save money or a redesigned rehabilitation system.
I think a vital philsophical consideration in this conversation is the intent of a prison system.
Are prisons a pedological reform institution, or simply a form of castigation?
Interestingly, when one operates under either of those definitions, mandatory minimums for low-level drug offenders seems cruel and unusual.
If reform is in fact that intent of prison, a confined, high-stress environment where drug-use still exists is not the right answer for people who need help. There is a fundamental difference between a drug abuser and a criminal.
That difference is the reason why vindictive prison sentences are wildly inappropriate for many drug offenders. So many of these people are people who need help, rather than people who are criminals. Drug addiction is an ILLNESS. Defining addiction as a crime can create repugnant moral situations if regarded in black and white. Many addicts are forced to deal drugs to fund their addiction.
But sure, plenty of drug offenders are actual criminals cheating the law , rather than sick people. They endanger other peoples' lives. They deserve jail time, and jail is an appropriate attempt to reform them.
But obviously, that needs to be decided on a case by case basis.
SO WHY DO WE HAVE MANDATORY MINIMUMS???
Justice=Equity? Super super interesting question. But this comment is already to long, so does anybody else have any thoughts? Should a court treat each defendant exactly the same?
Here's a link to back up my assertion that drug-use exists behind prison walls:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/27/drugs-inside-prison-walls/?page=all
The concept behind prisons assumes a population of at least semi-rational actors. In terms of crime and punishment, this has held to be true for the most part; drug addicts are rational actors with dramatically different cost-benefit evaluations. As a society, we impose our set of evaluations upon others, and prisons are one way of modifying the payoff matrix for offenders.
I would disagree with Jack's evaluation of the prison system's analysis. The prison system is intended to be a disincentive to would-be criminals, but are also places of rehabilitation. Furthermore, I contend that mandatory sentences are neither cruel nor unusual. If, as a society, we find that below a certain threshold the payoff matrix is not sufficiently tilted towards societal expectations, then we increase penalties or decrease incentives. The minimum sentence is what the legislature has determined to be an adequate punishment below which the matrix is not sufficiently modified in almost all cases, and therefore should not be considered.
Sentencing restrictions are also intended to prevent judges from abusing their ability to impose arbitrary sentences by limiting their possible decisions to a narrower field. Without them, a judge could effectively nullify a law by sentencing them to nothing.
One of the reasons why we have mandatory minimums is to (hopefully) avoid cases like this.
Furthermore, the fact that drug addiction is an illness isn't really significant; if we were to replace drug addiction / addiction with pedophilia (which is recognized by the APA as a mental disorder), we would arrive at a clearly erroneous conclusion.
Ultimately, I believe that if any reform is to be had, it should come from the legislature itself rather than a unilateral change from the Justice Department. One of the founding principles of the United States is that it should be a nation of laws, not men.
As a libertarian, I wholeheartedly agree with decreased prison sentences for low-level drug offenders, but I must respectfully dissent concerning the manner with which this decrease is implemented.
If prison is meant to reform and rehabilitate, then yes, I would agree with Jack. The environment of prison is unhealthy in many respects and exacerbates the relatively high rate of reincarceration.
I think it will be worth looking at the effects of this reform on minority communities - almost 40% of inmates are black, yet they make up only around 15% of the population. Here's a short article that adds to the conversation about what kinds of reforms are necessary outside of just prison: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/michelle-alexander-drug-war_n_4913901.html How do we change the way we systematically marginalize groups of people? Perhaps reform through law is the only viable option, and I think we need to change the way we "rehabilitate" prisoners. Punishment helps no one. Yes, criminal should be restrained and mandatory sentences are sometimes necessary so that they do not harm themselves or other people, but we should educate them and see that they are able to return to their communities.
Post a Comment