Friday, June 28, 2013
In Today's Minneapolis Star-Tribune...
A piece on narcotics and incarceration I wrote with the remarkable Judge Mark W. Bennett, who has visited over 250 of the people he sentenced at their prisons.
Comments:
<< Home
We clearly have an incarceration problem. In broad strokes we agree. But I'm wondering if mandatory minimums in and of themselves are necessarily the problem. In contrast to the overall sentencing scheme, which seems to be broken, and what exactly the minimum is. (i.e. make them shorter.)
I say this because we also have a problem with racial sentencing disparities, and it seems to me that some level of mandatory minimum might be part of the solution to that problem.
In other words, fix differences between crimes and/or drugs that are not grounded in a rational basis. And shorten what the minimum is. But having a mandatory minimum, or a nearly mandatory minimum (i.e. a strong presumption that is difficult to overcome) would seem to help ensure we treat likes alike.
In short, is it mandatory minimums that are the problem, or something else?
Thoughts? I'm arguing the point, but I may not have the whole picture.
I say this because we also have a problem with racial sentencing disparities, and it seems to me that some level of mandatory minimum might be part of the solution to that problem.
In other words, fix differences between crimes and/or drugs that are not grounded in a rational basis. And shorten what the minimum is. But having a mandatory minimum, or a nearly mandatory minimum (i.e. a strong presumption that is difficult to overcome) would seem to help ensure we treat likes alike.
In short, is it mandatory minimums that are the problem, or something else?
Thoughts? I'm arguing the point, but I may not have the whole picture.
The problem is that mandatory minimums are overwhelmingly used in the type of cases where minorities are disproportionately represented. Mandatory minimums for insider trading would not suffer that problem, but that isn't where they happen.
The other thing is that good lawyers can often negotiate a change in charge (or cut a cooperation deal) that evades the mandatory minimum. The poor have generally worse lawyers as a rule (though some federal defenders are the best lawyers of all). This means that whatever mandatory minimum you impose will probably disproportionately affect the poor.
Post a Comment
The other thing is that good lawyers can often negotiate a change in charge (or cut a cooperation deal) that evades the mandatory minimum. The poor have generally worse lawyers as a rule (though some federal defenders are the best lawyers of all). This means that whatever mandatory minimum you impose will probably disproportionately affect the poor.
<< Home
