The Human Rights Watch is an independent organization dedicated to protecting human rights domestically and around the globe. This week, they have released an extensive 126-page report called “An Offer You Can’t Refuse: How US Federal Prosecutors Force Drug Defendants to Plead Guilty.”
The argument focuses on the issue of mandatory minimums—certain crimes in which convictions automatically require a minimum punishment, such as a given amount of years in prison. One example of a mandatory minimum is the three-strikes law, which requires that if an individual is found guilty of a third felony charge, they have a mandated harsher sentence. Mandatory minimums are especially controversial in drug cases—there are certain types of drugs like painkillers and hard drugs that mandate harsh sentences.
Supporters argue that certain crimes deserve uniformly appropriate punishments. After all, we’ve all seen what happens when judges are allowed sole discretion in deciding punishments—the recent case of Stacey Dean Rambold, who was given only a 31-day sentence for raping an underage girl. Critics of the law argue that it does not allow the accused to be charged on a more appropriate case-by-case basis. They also argue that it leads to a countless number of unfair convictions and sentences, such as these examples. Ninety-seven percent choose to plead guilty.
Another issue with mandatory minimums is that they only refer to types of drugs and amounts, not the actual job of the person being charged. For example, a kid who is working as a courier can be charged with selling large quantities of drugs, instead of the actual drug dealer facing charges.
The report released by the Human Rights Watch details how these mandatory minimum requirements in drug cases are being manipulated. Prosecutors give defendants the choice: either go to trial, and if convicted, face harsh mandatory minimums, or plead guilty to a lower sentence than the mandatory minimum. According to this report, they also threaten to add charges to the crimes, such as prior drug convictions, or if they had a weapon at the time they were arrested.
Given that some of these mandatory minimums can be a life sentence, this offer is incredibly enticing.
The Human Rights Watch report looked at a number of cases in which defendants pled not guilty, and the results were devastating. For example, a woman named Sandra Avery, who was characterized as a small-time drug dealer, was offered a sentence of 10 years for possessing 50 grams of crack cocaine with intent to sell. She turned it down, and instead chose to go to trial. She is now serving life in prison without parole.
The HRW report calls this a “trial penalty.” They explain that a trial is a right within the United States, but that for those who have been forced to plead guilty for fear of an unreasonable sentence, that right has been taken away. The relevant statistics that the HRW gathered are convincing—as noted in the report, “the average sentence for federal drug offenders who pled guilty was five years, four months; for those convicted after trial, the average sentence was sixteen years.”
This report will most likely add to a growing sentiment that mandatory minimums need to be revisited. After all, Attorney General Eric Holder has made his feelings on them clear—he has stated that the laws need to change. Hopefully, this report will continue that discussion, and changes will be made to ensure that everyone does receive the due process of law.
—
Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.
Featured image courtesy of [Tori Rector via Flickr]