88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
In 2010, Congress mitigated a blight on the U.S. justice system byreducing a racist drug sentencing disparity. Before the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act, crack offenses, which disproportionately ensnare African Americans, carried mandatory minimum sentences that were 100 times those for powder cocaine sentences, which are more often doled out to whites. In the compromise measure, Congress reduced that disparity to 18 to 1. While the law initially applied only to future sentences, the U.S. Sentencing Commission opted a year later toapply the new law to sentences retroactively.
Just two years later, theresults of the Sentencing Commission’s actionhave been striking. More than 7,300 inmates convicted of crack offenses have received average 29-month sentence reductions, meaning a total of 16,000 years in prison saved, according to calculations on new U.S. Sentencing Commission data by sentencing expert Doug Berman. Eighty-five percent of those who received reduced sentences were black, and Berman points out that these average reduced sentences of ten years are still “significantly higher than the average sentence imposed for any other drug crime.” Still, these reductions have already saved the Bureau of Prisons half a billion dollars by conservative estimates. That is abig chunk of changefor an agency whose total budget is $7 billion, and already exceedsinitial Bureau of Prison estimates. Violent crime rates, meanwhile, haveneared generational lows, in spite of alarmist warnings about dangerous criminals set loose.
But this is just the beginning of the impact of potential sentencing reform. For one thing, judges continue to consider petitions for reduced sentences, with the U.S. Sentencing Commission predicting it could take decades for all possible sentencing reductions to occur.
More significantly, the majority of inmates sentenced before 2010 are not even eligible for sentencing reductions, because they are serving mandatory minimum sentences that judges have absolutely no discretion to reduce. The U.S. Sentencing Commission change only affects the guidelines judges use to sentence offenders whose conviction was not subject to a mandatory minimum penalty, or perhaps who were sentenced to more than the mandatory minimum. For most other sentenced inmates, the old 100-to-1 sentencing scheme will remain in effect, absent a definitive court ruling or act of Congress declaring that the mandatory minimum sentence reduction is retroactive.
One federal appeals court panelheld in Maythat the FSA’s reduction of mandatory minimum sentences should apply retroactively, not just because that was the intent of the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, but because failure to do so would amount to unconstitutional, “intentional racial subjugation.” But in the likely event that this ruling does not survive a full panel review and/or appeal, abipartisan billintroduced this week by Sens. dikk Durbin (D-IL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) would make that ruling the law of the land. This bill would also soften the overall impact of harsh mandatory minimum sentences by giving judges more discretion to reduce sentences. Another bipartisan proposal to mitigate mandatory minimum sentences has beenintroduced in both the House and Senateby different lawmakers. Withjudges, prosecutors, the Department of Justiceand lawmakers from both parties now imploring reform of counterproductivemass incarceration policies, the primary remaining obstacle to at least incremental change may becongressional dysfunction.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...-16k-prison-years-and-half-a-billion-dollars/