Justice reform deal is a good first step
Published 4:46 am Sunday, October 4, 2015
The U.S. Senate has reached a historic agreement on reducing unjust prison sentences. This is commendable and should be the start of an even larger slate of criminal justice reforms.
At the center of last week’s agreement is the reduction of “mandatory minimums” – sentences set by lawmakers instead of judges.
Trending
“After two years of maneuvering, high-ranking Senate Republicans and Democrats on Thursday unveiled a compromise to bring significant reform to the criminal justice system through a series of sentencing and prison reforms long sought by both liberals and conservatives,” the Washington Post reported. “If approved, the bill would shorten the length of mandatory sentences for repeat drug offenders and would end the federal ‘three strikes’ mandatory life provision. It would also expand the judicial discretion ‘safety valve,’ allowing low-level drug offenders to be sentenced to less time than currently dictated under existing mandatory terms.”
The reforms will apply retroactively – thereby undoing many, many unjust sentences.
Don’t mistake this for being “soft on crime.” There are very solid conservative arguments to be made for these reforms.
Mandatory minimums and the three-strikes rule are well-intentioned but ultimately misguided efforts by legislators to crack down on crime.
First, one size never fits all. Passing mandatory minimum legislation makes for good politics, but not good policy. Every criminal case is different, and judges should have the power to tailor their rulings to each specific case and each specific defendant. We must not bind the judges’ hands with mandatory minimums or a three-strikes rule.
Next, conservatives believe in local control and accountability – and these are best served by eliminating (not just reducing) mandatory minimums. This is particularly true in Texas, where our judges are elected (not appointed). If we don’t like the sentences they hand down, we can let them know directly – at the ballot box.
Trending
That being said, the Senate’s agreement doesn’t go far enough. It’s fine as a starting point, but lawmakers have a lot of work to do.
Mandatory minimums should be abolished, not merely reduced.
And further reforms should address the issue of mens rea, or intent.
“While sentencing reform addresses how long people should serve once convicted, mens rea reform addresses those who never should have been convicted in the first place – people who engaged in conduct without any knowledge of or intent to violate the law and which they could not have reasonably anticipated would violate a criminal law,” explained the Heritage Foundation’s John G. Malcolm. “It is therefore disappointing that mens rea has not been in the reform conversation, because one of the greatest safeguards against overcriminalization – the misuse and overuse of criminal laws and penalties to address societal problems – is ensuring that there is an adequate mens rea requirement in criminal laws.”
One book published in 2009 speculated – not inaccurately – that Americans are capable of committing “Three Felonies a Day” without knowing it or having the intent of breaking the law.
Still, the Senate deal on criminal justice reform is praiseworthy and a fine example of both parties coming together to solve real problems.