Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentences

By Ron Walters

Phillip Gaines was six when his mother was given a 20-year prison sentence. He worked tirelessly for her release, writing letters and bravely telling his story. Phillip's hard work is an inspiration to children everywhere.

The Issue

The American justice system traditionally permits judges to weigh all the facts of a case when determining an offender’s sentence. But in the 1970s, and 1980s, the U.S. Congress and many state legislatures passed laws that force judges to give fixed prison terms to those convicted of specific crimes, most often drug offenses. Lawmakers believed these harsh, inflexible sentencing laws would catch those at the top of the drug trade and deter others from entering it.

Instead, this heavy-handed response to the nation’s drug problem filled prisons with low-level offenders, resulting in over-capacity prison populations and higher costs for taxpayers. Mandatory sentencing laws disproportionately affect people of color and, because of their severity, destroy families. Two decades after the enactment of mandatory sentences, these laws have failed to deter people from using or selling drugs: drugs are cheaper, purer and more easily obtainable than ever before.

I am often asked what is the black agenda for the 2004 elections and what issues should be asking the candidates to pay attention to. High on the list is the repeal of Mandatory Minimum Sentences.

I was watching a hearing of the House of Representatives subcommittee on Appropriations on the needs of the Supreme Court. It was chaired by Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf and featured Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. I was noting that there seemed to be a division of labor between the two justices. Thomas apparently was sent there to testify about the administrative and technological needs of the high court, while Kennedy explained staffing needs and other issues.

Well, they were talking about their respective issues when Wolf asked Kennedy about his pursuit of eliminating mandatory minimums. I was startled at the passion with which Kennedy plowed into the subject, stating that the United States now incarcerates people at eight times more than any industrial country in the world and that 55 percent of those in the federal system are there for petty drug offenses.

Kennedy plowed on, saying that such sentences were “unfair, unjust and unwise...” and that the guidelines were put into place at a time when politicians were trying to outdo one another being “tough on crime.” The goal was to give everybody the same sentence since it was thought that no one actually served the sentences meted out by the courts, so long sentences would be a deterrent.

Kennedy also suggested that the sentencing has been too expensive. In California, they were spending $26,000 on inmates locked up for this purpose and spending just $6,000 on education per child at the level of elementary education.

Wolf struck back saying that we are becoming a violent society and that he would be for possibly adjusting the sentences for nonviolent offenders, but not for violent ones. For example, he talked about taking the money used to incarcerate offenders and putting in into drug rehabilitation programs, and if people violated their drug rehabilitation program, then they would do time — or some other such formulation.

Kennedy shot back with the thought that supervised release has been found to be 40 percent more effective and cheaper than having someone in full-time custody and that since the court system has to spend more money to allocate resources for mandatory minimums, we are not doing a good job. Kennedy ended his passionate charge to the conservative lawmakers in front him by praising the courage of justices who served lower level courts that were not following the minimum guidelines.

Today, there is a group called Families Against Mandatory Minimum Sentences that has grown up to confront and repeal this pernicious law. The Hip-Hop mogul Russell Simons has been waging a campaign in New York City to bring heat and light to the opposition to this issue. But I have not seen the rest of our leadership out front on this issue that, more than any other, has contributed to locking up an entire generation of black youth who are targeted and punished at a greater rate than whites.

These young people have become caught up in a nasty period of ideological fervor where white males had to prove that they in fact controlled society by fashioning a set of laws in the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill. It has had a disastrous effect on our community, even at a time when crime has been going down. So, even though 6,000 of them will be coming out this year, most will not be eligible for public housing, student loans and other public goods that will enable them to get a fresh start in society.

President Bush adopted a program created by Jesse Jackson that propose to put churches in a relationship to those coming of prison to make their transition easier. But nothing would make it easier than to eliminate those punishment laws that has made it tough for them to get a new start and easier for them to consider giving up and going back to the old ways. In fact, Bush ought to make it harder for them to get in, rather than easier to get out, but impossible to get on with their lives.

The black leadership has said a lot about getting convicted felons to vote, but not much about getting them a life, and we are giving the politicians a pass on this issue. For example, if you go to John Kerry’s Web site, there is a list of issues, but nothing about the repeal of mandatory minimums — or any other criminal justice issue. Democrats have also played the game of being “tough on crime” to stay viable in the race for votes. But it is time to know where Kerry stand (we know where Bush stands) on this issue.

Justice Clarence Thomas said not a mumbling word at the hearing, but Kennedy and his colleague Justice Steven Breyer are fighting hard. We should join them.