David Perdue’s Opposition to Criminal Justice Bill Draws Praise
The following is a guest Op-Ed written by Steven H. Cook, President of the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, in response to Monday’s Op-Ed from Jason Pye:
In Jason Pye’s post David Perdue Wrong on Justice Reform, he suggests proponents believe that Senator Perdue’s opposition to the current legislation, which is spearheaded by Families Against Mandatory Minimums (an organization founded by families of drug dealers), was a mistake. It is not.
The legislation in question, “The Sentence Reform and Corrections Act” (SRCA), proposes to lower federal penalties for violent felons and top tier repeat drug traffickers. Worse, the SRCA would make those penalty reductions retroactive and make thousands of federal prisoners convicted of those crimes eligible for early release from federal prison. To be clear, many of the violent offenders and drug traffickers who would benefit from this proposed legislation are gang members and criminals with ties to drug cartels—some of the most serious criminals in our country.
Moreover, these early releases would be in addition to the tens of thousands of high-level drug traffickers already released and pending early release by the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the tens of thousands more that are being considered for release pursuant to President Obama’s 2014 Clemency Project. Those early releases have already resulted in tragedies like the triple murder committed by Wendell Callahan described in a recent video.
That isn’t all: the SRCA would cut mandatory minimum penalties in half for many drug traffickers—no matter how much or what type of drug is involved—if a judge accepts their argument that they are minor participants in the conspiracy.
It is no wonder that these “reforms” are strongly opposed by the law enforcement groups closest to the issue including: the National Association of Assistant US Attorneys, the FBI Agents’ Association, the National Narcotics Officers’ Associations’ Coalition, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and the National Sheriffs’ Association. And why do these nonpartisan groups of career federal prosecutors and federal, state, and local law enforcement officials so strongly oppose the SRCA?
Since the mid-1980s these criminal statutes have been a critical part of the federal efforts on violent crime, gangs, and international drug trafficking. And they have been incredibly effective. Since 1991 the violent crime rate (which had more than tripled during the preceding three decades) has been cut in half. These efforts have resulted in 1.2 million fewer violent crimes in the United States every year.
Senator Perdue and the other senators who have opposed the SRCA should be commended for protecting the integrity of the federal criminal justice system—a system that works as designed and removes the worst criminals from our streets.
Steve Cook is president of the National Association of Assistant US Attorneys. He currently serves as the chief of the Criminal Division in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee. He has been an Assistant United States Attorney for 29 years and has worked in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force; the General Crimes Section handling white collar crime, fraud, and public corruption; and was the deputy criminal chief in the Narcotics and Violent Crime Section.
About Author
Jon Richards
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“It’s a stark fact that the United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, yet we have almost 25 percent of the world’s total prison population. The numbers today are much higher than they were 30, 40 years ago despite the fact that crime is at historic lows.”
–Hillary Rodham Clinton (D), speech on criminal justice at Columbia University, April 29, 2015
“Though only 5 percent of the world’s population lives in the United States, it is home to 25 percent of the world’s prison population. … Not only does the current overpopulated, underfunded system hurt those incarcerated, it also digs deeper into the pockets of taxpaying Americans.”
–Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), news release on Web site, March 9, 2015
“This was a seemingly unbelievable figure that turned out to be correct. The widely cited statistic about the United States’ share of prisoners compared to other countries recently earned the rare Geppetto Checkmark by The Fact Checker.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/07/yes-u-s-locks-people-up-at-a-higher-rate-than-any-other-country/
Is Mr. Cook also seeking to become a pandering politician like Perdue? Sounds like the “land of the free” to me. U.S. Attorneys like Mr. Cook in conjunction with good ol’ J. Edgar back in the day have worked their jobs creation program up to 3,000 federal crimes on the books, though in fact several studies have been unable to quantify the exact number.
“None of these studies broached the separate—and equally complex—question of crimes that stem from federal regulations, such as, for example, the rules written by a federal agency to enforce a given act of Congress. These rules can carry the force of federal criminal law. Estimates of the number of regulations range from 10,000 to 300,000. None of the legal groups who have studied the code have a firm number.”
“There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime,” said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. “That is not an exaggeration.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920#:G9T49_yEPlOHXA
The Constitution itself identifies only three federal crimes – piracy, counterfeiting, and treason. We need to curtail the feds and go back to state and local control of what we consider to be “crimes” and what their sentences should be. The War On Drugs is an abysmal failure and federal interpretations of what is allowed in confiscations has also led to rampant disregard of the 4th amendment on the local level as well. This is a federal government that has run amok in infringing the civil rights guaranteed within our Constitution.
Apparently I’ve said something wrong previously. Oh well, my take on why The National Association of Assistant US Attorneys, the FBI Agents’ Association, the National Narcotics Officers’ Associations’ Coalition, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and the National Sheriffs’ Association all oppose this bill is that it is bad for their business.
Multiple links automatically filter a comment to moderation.
Thanks for clueing me in. In the future I will just give a reference as opposed to the link. I just don’t want people to think I’m just pulling things out of the air.
One is safe. Two…can’t remember. Three or more goes into moderation for sure.
Regrettably, Steve Cook misrepresents the views of Families Against Mandatory Minimums regarding the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act (S. 2123). In fact, FAMM does not think the bill goes far enough to reform mandatory minimum sentences.
We recently expressed our views on the recently-modified S. 2123 as follows: “[T]his bill was very modest to begin with, and Congress should be strengthening it, not weakening it. In the last several days, Oklahoma, Maryland, and Iowa lawmakers have passed bold reforms that reduce or eliminate mandatory minimum drug sentences. Congress should be following that example, capitalizing on public support for sentencing reform and passing significant reform that will seriously impact who goes to prison and for how long. There are some improvements [to the revised S. 2123] being made today, but the bill still does not pass the Mandy Martinson test. When first-time, nonviolent drug addicts like her still get 15-year mandatory minimum sentences, we have to question how much reform is really being achieved. The bill also takes some steps backward. It would now require courts to impose extra prison time for crimes involving fentanyl, a drug sometimes mixed with heroin. But long sentences have been a dismal failure at stopping drug crime and abuse. Congress would do better to invest more money in treatment rather than spend it on locking people up longer for drug crimes.”
For 25 years, we have urged Congress and state lawmakers to repeal mandatory minimum sentences or, short of that, create wide exceptions that give courts the flexibility they need to ensure the punishment fits the crime and the individual offender in every case. We are not against punishment, but merely believe that punishments should be individualized and cost-effective, preserve family unity and well-being, and increase public safety. Our current mandatory minimum drug sentences fail on all counts.
The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act (SRCA) is a very modest bill – so modest, it’s difficult to understand the near-hysterical views of Mr. Cook. The bill does not cut mandatory minimum drug sentences in half. Rather, it slightly reduces (e.g., from life to 25 years, 20 years to 15 years) only two of the longest mandatory minimum sentences for some drug traffickers. The bill even adds new mandatory minimums and sentencing enhancements.
Mr. Cook is simply mistaken that all drug traffickers are violent and would be released under this bill. In fact, federal sentencing data shows a different picture: each year, of the approximately 20,000 drug offenders sentenced in federal courts, 93% were not leaders of the drug activity, 83% did not possess guns, and half had no prior criminal record. In FY 2014, only 59 of 20,757 federal drug cases involved death or serious bodily injury (often, sadly, from the overdose of a drug user) – 0.2 percent. Only 0.7 percent — 142 of 20,757 drug cases — involved the use or threats of violence.
While incarceration has been responsible for about 25% of the crime decline over the last 30 years, the other 75% of that decline was caused by something else, and there is no data or evidence to show that mandatory minimum sentences in particular made any meaningful contribution.
The aforementioned “Mandy Martinson test” is based on the story of Iowan Mandy Martinson. She is serving a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence for being considered a participant in a drug trafficking conspiracy run by a man she dated for one month. Mandy was an addict who did not sell drugs or profit from them. She did not use guns or violence against others. But she was held accountable for all of the drugs her then-boyfriend sold and the two handguns he brought into her home. It is her first and only offense. She received and successfully completed drug treatment before she was sentenced. Her Bush-appointed federal judge opposed the 15-year mandatory minimum term wholeheartedly, finding that Mandy was not a public safety risk. To NAAUSA, apparently, Mandy is the kind of “violent” drug trafficker taxpayers should pay over $400,000 to incarcerate for 15 years, despite no discernible public safety increase from doing so. You can learn more about Mandy at famm.org/mandy.
The SRCA does not shorten the sentences of Mandy and others like her, or give judges more discretion in those cases. If Mr. Cook will not support sentencing reform that does not help people like Mandy, I question whether he and NAAUSA would support any sentencing reform at all, and whether their opinions are of any relevance to this debate.
Molly Gill
Director of Federal Legislative Affairs, FAMM
+1