Holder right about mandatory terms

Published 9:18 pm Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder is on to something with his call on Monday to rethink mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenses. Although his speech before the American Bar Association left much to be desired, he’s right about this, at least: local control is best, and judges should have discretion to evaluate individual circumstances when assessing sentences.

In that speech, Holder said that “that low-level, nonviolent drug offenders with no ties to gangs or large-scale drug organizations will no longer be charged with offenses that impose severe mandatory sentences,” according to the Washington Post.

“A vicious cycle of poverty, criminality and incarceration traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities,” Holder said. “However, many aspects of our criminal justice system may actually exacerbate this problem rather than alleviate it.”

That’s true enough. And in his instructions to his 94 U.S. attorneys, he’ll call for new charging guidelines that are “locally tailored” to their regions.

This is a positive development. The more “local” rules, regulations and laws are, the better. What’s best in one place may not be what’s best in another.

That said, Holder is wrong about a number of other issues.

First, his action is an executive action, and bypasses Congress. This isn’t uncommon for the Obama administration, which seems to view the legislative process as an increasingly unnecessary bother. Yes, government should reconsider mandatory minimums and disproportionate sentencing guidelines, but the lawmaking body of government really ought to be involved. Allowing the executive branch to decide if, when and how to enforce those laws sets an dangerous precedent.

Second, Holder’s reasoning is flawed when it comes to prison. He sees prison — surely the result of individual decisions — as a sign of injustice, and as unrelated to the drop in crime in recent years.

“Too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long and for no good law enforcement reason,” Holder said. “We cannot simply prosecute or incarcerate our way to becoming a safer nation.”

In fact, we can. That’s pretty much how it works; we put bad people in jail, and they’re suddenly, magically, incapable of doing bad things on our streets.

Then there’s the “Fox Butterfield Effect.” It’s when a reporter or policy maker asks a question, though the answer is self-evident.

Butterfield is a New York Times reporter who wrote a series of stories in the 1990s about a phenomenon he simply couldn’t understand.

“More Inmates, Despite Drop In Crime” was the headline of one of these stories.

Holder may find this perplexing, but it’s really not.

Throughout his speech, Holder indicated he’s modeling his proposed reforms on our success here in Texas. That’s smart. In Texas, we’re actually closing prisons because of unfilled beds. Since 2007, the Texas Legislature has been strengthening community-based responses to drug addiction — drug courts, better parole and probation procedures, and drug treatment options. The result has been the lowest crime rate in the state since 1968.

So by all means, let’s rethink mandatory minimums at the federal level.