Public safety and justice are not mutually exclusive in America
I respectfully disagree with the views of Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton on the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act.
This bipartisan legislation, introduced by five Republicans and five Democrats, would enable prosecutors and judges to maintain critical tools for prosecuting violent offenders and high-level drug traffickers while reducing mandatory minimums and life without parole sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.
It will not — as the myth circulating among some of our colleagues claims — release a wave of drug offenders who are inherently violent. That claim is false and simply does not factually line up with the reality of who is behind bars in our federal prisons.
The truth is, the vast majority of people in federal prisons are nonviolent offenders.
According to a report released last month from the congressionally mandated and bipartisan Colson Task Force, about half (45 percent) of the 95,305 people serving time for drug crimes in federal prison have few, if any, prior convictions. Almost 80 percent of all people in federal prison for drug crimes had no history of violence before their current offense.
Contrary to what some bill opponents argue, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act would preserve the five and ten year mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders. It would also more effectively target these mandatory minimums on high-level drug traffickers. Federal drug laws were meant to go after drug kingpins, and this legislation leaves important tools in place to allow prosecutors to go after the truly dangerous drug traffickers.
Also, contrary to what some argue, this bill would not open the flood gates and permit violent offenders to be let out of prison early. Rather, each case must go before a federal judge, with the prosecutor present for an independent judicial review. As former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey noted at a congressional briefing, this public safety check will ensure that those who are released from prison indeed deserve to have their sentenced reduced and do not pose a risk of harm to the community.
Finally, opponents forget that regardless of this bill, the vast majority of those behind bars right now will be one day be released from prison. In its current function, the system in place has not resulted in low recidivism rates. In fact, the opposite is true — the percentage of released prisoners who end up back in prison after being released is alarmingly high.
According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics study that examined prisoners released in 30 states in 2005, over 75 percent were arrested again within five years.
That is not an argument for why the system we currently have is working. Rather, that data clearly shows that our current system is broken and it is not making our communities safer.
Longer prison sentences do not reduce recidivism — recidivism reduction programs do, and that is exactly what our bill provides for.
Furthermore, experts at the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council have found that lengthy prison sentences have a minimal impact on crime prevention, and that:
“A comprehensive review of data led the committee that wrote the report to conclude that the costs of the current rate of incarceration outweigh the benefits.”
It’s been suggested that the tough on crime policies that brought us to this point arose from both state practice and community advocacy. If that is indeed the case, we should heed the lessons states and communities across the country have clearly learned over the past decade.
States across America have shown that you can reduce the prison population and simultaneously reduce crime. By utilizing innovative approaches to addressing incarceration, public safety and recidivism, states have drawn a roadmap for reform.
Texas, for instance, between 2007 and 2012, reduced its incarceration rate by 9 percent and saw its total crime rate drop by 16 percent. If Texas — a state known for law and order and being tough on crime — can enact sweeping measures to reform its criminal justice system and also see reductions in crime, so can we at the federal level.
The Texas experience is no fluke. California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Utah have all lowered their prison populations and simultaneously saw crime drop.
In fact, Pew found that the ten states that most significantly cut their imprisonment rates actually experienced greater crime reduction than the ten states where imprisonment rates increased.
And public opinion is on the side of reform and justice. A recent national poll reflected that a strong majority of Americans — 79 percent — from across the political spectrum, support policies that would reform the system, including eliminating mandatory minimums.
A functioning criminal justice system capable of protecting the public has an indispensable role to play in maintaining law and order in America — but right now, our justice system simply doesn’t work the way it should.
It betrays our values, it betrays our national priorities, and our failure to fix it betrays the oath we swore as senators to faithfully discharge the duties of the office we hold.
The United States Senate has served as a powerful force for good when it has come to addressing some of our most pressing and complex national challenges. Historic pieces of legislation that shaped our nation‘s future for the better found their footing in the Senate.
As negotiations continue on this bill, and modifications are made to allay concerns — real or perceived — we must ensure that it continues to have a significant impact on reforming our broken criminal justice system. I urge my colleagues to consider the potential we have to not only improve the lives of all of our constituents, but leave a legacy of work befitting the body in which we serve.
I urge my colleagues to support the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act.
