Bill Would Let Judges Bypass Mandatory Minimums In Certain Cases

Sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums have not done what was promised—they haven’t reduced crime and they haven’t eliminated racial disparities. What they have done is serve as fuel to the prison systems of this country and forced government at local, state, and federal levels to dole out millions in related costs. In an effort to slow their effects, lawmakers have introduced “safety valve” legislation that would give judges a way out.

According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM)—an advocacy organization supporting the bill­—the legislation would allow federal judges to depart from mandatory minimums under specific conditions. The bill, coined The Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 (S.619) was introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rand Paul (R-KY).

3D Judges Gavel“I am thrilled that Sen. Leahy and Sen. Paul are promoting this common-sense sentencing reform,” said FAMM President Julie Stewart. “The mandatory minimum sentences Congress chose might be appropriate in many cases, but certainly not in every case, especially those involving nonviolent offenders. By giving courts more flexibility, Congress will ensure that judges use our scarce prison beds and budget to keep us safe from truly violent offenders.”

Bill Would Give Judges “Safety Valve” In Limited Situations

Judges would be able to sentence a defendant below the mandatory minimum only if that lesser sentence wouldn’t sacrifice public safety. It doesn’t do away with the mandatory minimums, nor apply that they aren’t appropriate in some cases, but merely offers judges a chance to make more proper sentencing decisions in cases where a defendant plays a limited role in the commission of a crime, for instance, or where the greater sentence would just be out of line with the spirit of justice.

“Our country’s mandatory minimum laws reflect a Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all approach, which undermines the Constitutional Separation of Powers, violates the our bedrock principle that people should be treated as individuals, and costs the taxpayers money without making them any safer,” said Sen. Paul. “This bill is necessary to combat the explosion of new federal criminal laws, many of which carry new mandatory minimum penalties.”

Currently, there is a “safety valve” on the books, but it only applies to drug offenses. The new bill would allow it to be used elsewhere with the goal of balancing public safety with the goals of justice.

The “tough on crime” rhetoric of years passed is played out and has served to do nothing more than create a system of retribution rather than rehabilitation or real safety. Smart on crime policies stand to change that.

 

SCOTUS Limits Warrantless Drug-Dog Searches

In the past, U.S. Supreme Court justices have sided with the states in warrantless drug dog sniff searches. But this past week, they shifted directions on one Florida case, deciding that the police can’t use a drug dog at a home (even on the front porch) without a warrant. The difference between this case and previous ones? Location, location, location. [Read more…]

Are Wrongful Convictions Predictable?

People are accused of crimes they didn’t commit on a relatively regular basis. Less often, they are convicted for these offenses. Even experts have difficulty estimating just how many wrongful convictions happen, but a recent study indicates we may be able to predict when they will. [Read more…]

ACLU Launches Investigation into Police Militarization

Over the past few decades, SWAT teams have gone from a big city thing to an every city thing. Cops with military equipment, training, and even military assistance are no longer rare, they are commonplace. And with the police increasingly looking like a domestic military force, there needs to be accountability and the people need to know just how pervasive it is. [Read more…]

Pardons: A Delicate Balancing Act for Governors

As the most incarcerated nation in the world, many people have strong and even emotional opinions about crime and punishment in the United States. There is a sense of the “bad guys” being bad to the core and getting their due. Pardons issued by governors across the country, therefore, are sometimes greeted with serious controversy despite usually being well-calculated and cautious decisions. [Read more…]

What is the FBI Doing in “Community Outreach”?

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the largest federal law enforcement agency. They are federal police, make no mistake about it. So, while the fact that they have “community outreach” agents may seem nice, like they are delving into mending law enforcement and community relationships, their duty is to investigate crimes, period. [Read more…]

Police Officers Lying Under Oath Is Commonplace

The possibility of a police officer lying under oath is shocking, we know. But it likely happens far more often than we realize. According to some, it’s the order of the day.

Michelle Alexander, author and criminal justice critic asks, who are you more likely to believe—the inmate in the orange jumpsuit or the officer in the nicely pressed uniform? It’s this inherent bias that many cops use to their advantage. [Read more…]

House Panel Wants to Check Prosecutorial Power

It’s rare to see a governmental body put checks on prosecutors. Usually, the governments (local, state, and federal) count on prosecutors to be their heavy hand, the top law enforcer. This has led, in part, to  prosecutors having more power than ever and throwing that power around with little thought about its effects on due process rights or even the health of defendants.

[Read more…]

Feds Don’t Want You Knowing Their Surveillance Policies

The Justice Department, which oversees the FBI and all other federal law enforcement arms, has memos that detail just how and when they can track citizens via GPS. But, they want to keep these memos to themselves. They have refused to release their views on GPS tracking to the public through requests by the ACLU. Instead, they forward copies of the memos with huge sections blacked out. Now, why would a governmental agency in a nation “for the people” be so compelled to keep quiet something that could possibly threaten the liberty in which the country was founded upon? [Read more…]

Can Your “Right to Remain Silent” Work Against You?

The average person knows a little about having a “right to remain silent”. Even if you’ve never personally been arrested, you’ve heard that line before on television. But if remaining silent in the face of criminal charges is a right, how could it be used as evidence of our guilt in court? The Supreme Court has recently decided to hear a case where this question is the crux of the matter. [Read more…]