Holder Calls for an End to the Cycle of Poverty and Incarceration – In a continued signal of détente for the criminal justice system, US Attorney General Eric Holder made sweeping changes to the federal sentencing requirements by ordering federal prosecutors to cease listing the quantity of drugs in low-level drug cases, enabling them to sidestep federal laws that impose lengthy mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for possession of drugs and other related offenses.
In a speech at the American Bar Association’s annual meeting in San Francisco, Mr. Holder laid out his new policy which aims at modifying the Justice Department’s charging policies “so that certain low-level, nonviolent drug offenders who have no ties to large-scale organizations, gangs, or cartels will no longer be charged with offenses that impose draconian mandatory minimum sentences.”
Instead, “They now will be charged with offenses for which the accompanying sentences are better suited to their individual conduct, rather than excessive prison terms more appropriate for violent criminals or drug kingpins.”
His speech also deplored the moral impact of the US’s high incarceration rates. He stated, “Even though this country comprises just 5 percent of the world’s population, we incarcerate almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.”
And he linked those rates to the poverty and incarceration cycle, much as author Michelle Alexander would have.
“Today, a vicious cycle of poverty, criminality, and incarceration traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities. And many aspects of our criminal justice system may actually exacerbate these problems, rather than alleviate them,” the Attorney General said. “It’s clear… too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no truly good law enforcement reason. It’s clear, at a basic level, that 20th-century criminal justice solutions are not adequate to overcome our 21st-century challenges. And it is well past time to implement common sense changes that will foster safer communities from coast to coast.”
“This means that federal prosecutors cannot – and should not – bring every case or charge every defendant who stands accused of violating federal law. Some issues are best handled at the state or local level,” he continued.
The Attorney General touched all of the rails, including the fact that “people of color often face harsher punishments than their peers.” He noted a report that showed “black male offenders receive sentences nearly 20 percent longer than those imposed on white males convicted of similar crimes.”
Mr. Holder stated, “This isn’t just unacceptable – it is shameful.”
“We will start by fundamentally rethinking the notion of mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related crimes. Some statutes that mandate inflexible sentences – regardless of the individual conduct at issue in a particular case – reduce the discretion available to prosecutors, judges, and juries. Because they oftentimes generate unfairly long sentences, they breed disrespect for the system,” he continued.
“Although incarceration has a role to play in our justice system, widespread incarceration at the federal, state and local levels is both ineffective and unsustainable,” Mr. Holder said. “It imposes a significant economic burden – totaling $80 billion in 2010 alone – and it comes with human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate.”
“This is a big deal,” Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, and Vanita Gupta of the Center for Justice wrote on Monday. “This is the first speech by any Attorney General calling for such massive criminal justice reforms. This is the first major address from the Obama Administration calling for action to end the mass incarceration crisis and reduce the racial disparities that plague our criminal justice system.”
They note that many of the reforms that the ACLU has long championed made it into the Attorney General’s speech. These include: Developing guidelines to file fewer cases; Directing a group of U.S. Attorneys to examine sentencing disparities and develop recommendations to address them; Directing every U.S. Attorney to designate a Prevention and Reentry Coordinator; Directing every DOJ component to consider whether regulations have collateral consequences that impair reentry; Reducing mandatory minimum charging for low-level drug offenses; Expanding eligibility for compassionate release; Identifying and sharing best practices for diversion programs; Calling into question zero tolerance policies and other policies that lead to the school to prison pipeline; and Challenging the legal community to make the promise of Gideon (right to counsel) more of a reality.
They write, “The Attorney General has assured us that this is just the beginning, and he is taking on the bipartisan spirit that has produced state level reforms and has fueled the reduction in state prison populations. These changes are long overdue because the federal prison population continues to grow and is 40% over capacity. What’s worse, as a soon to be released ACLU report will show, a stunning 2,074 federal inmates are serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole for nonviolent crimes.”
“Mandatory minimums are partially to blame, leading to a situation in which billions of federal dollars currently go to incarcerating people convicted of low-level drug crimes,” they write. “It’s great Holder is leading the way, but there is a limit to what he can accomplish by executive action alone.”
They call for Congress to act and note that they “strongly support bipartisan bills introduced by Senators Paul and Leahy and Senators Durbin and Lee to lessen the impact of mandatory minimums.”
This may be possible because, as conservative columnist Debra Saunders notes, “It was big news because the administration finally has caught up with Republicans such as Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah. Paul and Lee have co-sponsored bills with Dick Durbin of Illinois and Pat Leahy of Vermont to reform mandatory minimum sentences so that nonviolent small-time offenders don’t serve decades in prison while kingpins who can inform on them serve lesser time.”
“It was big news because the Obama administration finally looked to what it could do about racial disparities under federal jurisdiction – instead of pointing at what others in the criminal justice system are doing wrong,” Ms. Saunder writes noting that it was also big news because “the administration finally is saying that it won’t prosecute cases it never should have touched to begin with. You don’t send the heavy artillery of federal enforcement to roust varmints when its job is supposed to be to bring down the top of the food chain in the drug trade.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]”This is the first speech by any Attorney General calling for such massive criminal justice reforms. This is the first major address from the Obama Administration calling for action to end the mass incarceration crisis and reduce the racial disparities that plague our criminal justice system.”
[/quote]
[quote]”It was big news because the administration finally has caught up with Republicans such as Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah. Paul and Lee have co-sponsored bills with Dick Durbin of Illinois and Pat Leahy of Vermont to reform mandatory minimum sentences so that nonviolent small-time offenders don’t serve decades in prison while kingpins who can inform on them serve lesser time.”[/quote]
Regardless of whom either side wants to claim as the champion of this for political purposes, this is a huge step in the right direction and has been far too long in coming. This would be a wonderful time for everyone to stop patting themselves on their respective partisan backs and get something meaningful done for our society.
Can’t argue with that. My purpose was to show that the ACLU and more libertarian leaning republicans in basic alignment on this issue with Holder.
How does Eric Holder’s speech match with the DOJ’s and his harsh stance on medical marijuana growing and laws in CA? Does anyone else see some disconnect here?
It sounds like they are in the process of changing their policies there as well.
The Feds are not prosecuting low level drug crimes. Holder just told the justice department not to do what they are already not doing. A vast majority of these cases are handled at the local level.
Holder needs a win. He should not even be holding his position at this point given all the mistakes he has made. But as a Teflon Messiah appointee, he gets some delegated [b]no accountability required[/b] status.
But, on this position I agree.
One question… what has taken so long?
Answer… in the Obama Administration EVERYTHING is done with an eye on political outcomes. So, the Democrat spin doctors and party brains must have decided that there is more political capital in letting the soft druggies go rather than puffing themselves up as being tough on crime.
I wish I could find enough reasons to not be cynical about this move by the Obama admin. It is not helping that I am reading “This Town” by Mark Leibovich.
[quote]When one in every 31 Americans is under correctional supervision, it’s clear that something is very wrong. The United States stands above all for freedom, and yet we have by far the highest rate of incarceration in the world. That’s why we should do everything we can, including sensible prison reform, to help more Americans learn to live in freedom. It is good to see Attorney General Holder take a step in this direction. [/quote]
From Newt Gingrich.
So, were is the opposition to this?
I have an old friend from Stockton that claimed more than half of his family worked in illegal drug trade. I commented “I bet you are for legalization”. He surprised me saying “Hell no, because if drugs were legal, the other half of my family would die of over-dose.”
Talking to people on the political left and right and their views on lowering our punishment of drug use, I find an interesting dichotomy. I know right-leaning friends that are absolutely against it. I know others that are absolutely for it. The same is true for my friends with left-leaning political views. The commonality seems to be the existence of close family members with serious substance abuse problems. Those that have it are against legalization or de-criminalization. I think there is genuine fear that their loved ones would be in worse shape as a result.
Which gets me to my sense that we need to roll out enhanced treatment program services at the same time we move to lower the punishment bar.
My libertarian impulse is to let people be responsible for their own behavior. However, I know of a few very good people that are afflicted with addictive/obsessive personality traits, and they lack the level of control I think they would need to prevent increased personal harm that could result from more lenient drug possession laws. I wish this wasn’t the case. I wish we could just shout at and shame people to cause them to stay away from addictive and destructive drugs. But human mental/physiological/psychological realities are such that we would be sacrificing some people with significant damage by increased drug use only to help prevent others from being damaged by incarceration.
We need enhanced treatment services to match reduced punishment for drug possession/use.
So, [s]were[/s] [b]where[/b] is the opposition to this?
The opposition is that no politician wants to be the one out in front saying “let’s soften penalties for drugs.” Look at various candidates for national office who have done that. Mostly they’re libertarians like Gary Johnson. It seems to be a non-starter for national office.
I tend to agree with liberalization and legalization. But really, what I think needs to happen is that the ‘schedules’ for drug enforcement need to be completely revamped based on scientific criteria, not political or historical or subjective ones. Highly addictive, dangerous drugs should not be freely available. I don’t know anyone who thinks meth or crack cocaine can be used responsibly or moderately, nor is treatment very effective for those who are addicted to them. They are a scourge on society. But marijuana? And half a dozen other drugs, treated as though they are equally dangerous? Ridiculous.
So a non-partisan revision of the drug and DEA schedules would be the first order of business. Then a review of the total mish-mash of sentencing policies, along with straight decriminalization of the softer ones.
Don Shor, Amen, amen my man. Again Don does the premier analysis.
[quote]Which gets me to my sense that we need to roll out enhanced treatment program services at the same time we move to lower the punishment bar.
[/quote]
I fully agree with this.
I also agree with Don’s statement that the truly dangerous drugs should not be readily available. However,
I see dangerous drug addiction as a medical problem not a criminal one. For me, the best way to control drugs is to legalize the non dangerous drugs such as marijuana, but make the dangerous drugs such as meth, and cocaine available, but only through medical treatment programs. I would see the methadone clinic model as one possible alternative for how to provide the truly addictive and dangerous drugs in a safe venue.