Sessions’ call for severe punishment will fight violent crime by punishing non-violent offenders

“At first glance, Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recent directive to federal prosecutors to pursue the most severe penalties possible seems to fit squarely within the Trump administration’s mission to fight violent crime.”

By Richard J. Pocker, J.D., USA Today, 14 July 2017 [Original Article]

As a former U.S. attorney, I am encouraged by this mission — having seen the devastating impact of violence in communities.

Unfortunately, I also know firsthand that this directive will fail to fight violence effectively, and will instead place harsh, unproductive penalties on non-violent offenders.

With prosecutors’ hands tied, now, more than ever, it is critical that Congress acts to recalibrate federal sentencing laws to more appropriate levels to better protect public safety.

Incarceration doesn’t fix addiction

Prosecutors should reserve the most severe punishments for violent offenders.

But under this new directive, they must seek the longest prison term available by law for all crimes — and that includes non-violent drug crimes. If we’ve learned anything during the 40-year war on drugs, it’s that addiction can’t be solved by incarceration, no matter how long.

Lengthy sentences — many required by mandatory minimum laws — helped drive the mounting size and cost of federal prisons for decades. Since 1980, the federal prison population has grown by more than 700%, rising from 25,000 to 205,000 people behind bars as of fiscal year 2015. Today, the Bureau of Prisons is beyond capacity and consumes a substantial amount of the Department of Justice’s budget. In 2016, Congress approved a budget of $7.5 billion in taxpayer dollars to maintain this large prison population.

Only a fraction of that population poses a truly dangerous threat to their community. Unlike state prisons, where violent offenders account for 53% of the prison population, they make up merely 7% of the federal population. In comparison, half of federal prisoners are behind bars for drug offenses.

From my years of experience in prosecuting criminals, I have learned that high incarceration alone is ineffective at controlling crime — particularly in the war on drugs. After more than 40 years of attempting to use a criminal justice solution to this public health problem, we have already learned that the threat of incarceration — no matter how harsh — does not deter people with a chemical addiction. They need treatment, not handcuffs. Our country is now in the midst of an opioid epidemic. With a record number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses, we simply cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of our past.

Waste of taxpayer money

By allowing the DOJ to seek maximum penalties under outdated sentencing laws, the attorney general and Congress risk wasting taxpayer dollars. The Smart on Crime policy that Sessions seeks to dismantle recognized that law enforcement must focus on protecting our communities from the most serious threats. It asked our prosecutors to reserve the lengthiest prison stays for the worst offenders, and seek more appropriate punishments for low-level and non-violent offenders. In 2014, the federal prison population dropped consecutively for the first time in more than three decades with a falling crime rate.

This new DOJ directive, however, fails to direct limited resources toward our most dangerous and violent threats. This will undo recent gains in reducing unnecessary incarceration, strain over-burdened federal prisons and distract prosecutorial resources from Trump’s mission to fight violence.

With the safety and well-being of our communities at risk, it is time for Congress to intervene. To better target our limited resources, Congress should resurrect the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015. This bipartisan and commonsense bill would recalibrate federal sentencing policy by reducing mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders and grant judges greater discretion when sentencing low-level offenders. If passed, the resources the DOJ has directed its prosecutors to expend on all crimes would more often target dangerous individuals with lengthier punishments. It would save an estimated $722 million from the federal prison budget over about 10 years — resources that could then be redirected toward helping law enforcement fight violent crime on the ground.

The SRCA enjoys wide support from conservatives and progressives alike, including Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., as well as groups such as the Koch Industries and the American Civil Liberties Union. National law enforcement groups similarly support sentencing reform, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs’ Association, National District Attorneys Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police and Law Enforcement Leaders, who have all endorsed the bill, pointing to its public safety benefits.

By undertaking this measure, Congress is not entering into unchartered territory. Many states have already proven we can reduce incarceration lengths without increasing crime. Michigan and South Carolina, for example, both eliminated mandatory sentencing for various non-violent drug offenses and saw dramatic decreases in their prison populations and violent crime rates. In fact, over the last decade, 27 states have reduced crime and incarceration simultaneously.

Certainly, prison is a necessary punishment for crime. But, we must ensure that we use this tool effectively — targeting violent criminals with more resources and longer sentences than other offenders. My experience has shown me that this method better controls and deters crime than seeking the most severe punishment possible for every lawbreaker.

Now that Sessions has directed DOJ prosecutors to seek the highest sentences possible by law, changing federal sentencing laws is necessary to continue protecting public safety. The sentencing reform act is a crucial first step. By reintroducing and passing it, policymakers will allow law enforcement to better focus resources on the most dangerous threats to our communities and help us keep our streets safe.

[Original Article]

Richard J. Pocker, J.D., is a former United States Attorney. Following service in the U.S. Army JAG Corps with the Seventh Infantry Division, Rick joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada. Beginning as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, he later became the Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney, and ultimately the United States Attorney. Rick received the Chief Postal Inspector’s Special Award for Excellence of Performance in the Administration of Justice, and the Director’s Special Commendation Award from the U.S. Department of Justice.

In 1996, he was appointed Chief Counsel to the Select Subcommittee on the United States Role in the Iranian Arms Transfers to Croatia and Bosnia, chaired by the Honorable Henry Hyde of Illinois, leading a congressional investigation of national security, intelligence and foreign policy issues on behalf of the United States House of Representatives.

Travis Hiland, ReFraming Justice