The amount of prison time doled out by courts to perpetrators of non-violent, drug crimes are often excessively severe, sometimes more than 100 years in prison. In one particular case, a man was sentenced to a lifetime behind bars for possessing a bag with traces of cocaine. In another case, a man with no prior record is now serving a 25-year prison term for selling his pain pills to an undercover informant. These two individuals are just a few of the many serving years in prison due to harsh mandatory sentencing laws.

Keeping non violent criminals incarcerated for decades leads to overcrowded conditions and billions of taxpayer dollars. The mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses have led to prisons vastly exceeding their maximum capacity. The United States has seen a 500 percent increase in the number of inmates in federal custody over the last 30 years.

The goal of these harsh laws is to deter would-be criminals from committing crimes when they realize that they could spend for the rest of their lives behind bars. This plan sounds good in theory, but has failed in practice. Hosting them is not cheap; it costs around $50,000 to keep one person in prison for one year in California alone. Although America has only five percent of the world’s population, it hosts 25 percent of the world’s prison inmates.

The issue of overcrowded prisons is alarmingly prominent in the United States, as other countries have adopted more effective means of dealing with individuals who commit minor offenses. For example, in 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession, and since then many countries around the world have followed suit. Drug users in Portugal are also provided with therapy rather than prison sentences. Research commissioned by the Cato Institute found that in the five years after the start of decriminalization, illegal drug use by teenagers declined, the rate of HIV infections transmitted via drug use dropped, deaths related to hard drugs were cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction doubled.

Finally, the United States has realized the gravity of the situation and decided to take action. Recently, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin and Senator Mike Lee introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act to reduce the number of harsh drug sentencing policies in the United States. Essentially, the goal of the Smarter Sentencing Act is to reserve the use of federal resources for the offenders of the most serious crimes. Lawmakers supporting this bill hope that it will cause judges to use less harsh punishments such as community service or drug therapy. Making these changes could save taxpayers billions in the first years of enactment alone.

Specifically, the Smarter Sentencing Act would amend the federal criminal code so that defendants without prior record who did not commit a violent crime receive a less severe sentence. The bill also aims to reduce the chance that prisons reach their maximum capacities and lower prison housing costs.

How would the Smarter Sentencing Act impact current laws?

Under current guidelines, a first-time drug offense involving at least 10 but not more than 20 grams of methamphetamine has a recommended sentence range of 27-33 months. Under the new guidelines, the same quantity of methamphetamine would have a sentence range for a first-time offense of 21-27 months.

Attorney General Eric Holder is urging lawmakers to fast track a solution to this problem, stating that “this over-reliance on incarceration is not just financially unsustainable. It comes with human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate.”

Because Democrats and Republicans agree that the extreme sentencing problem is a serious one, prospects are good that this bill has a chance for success. Both parties more or less concede that there is a problem when looking at the prison system in the United States. Former Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan is one of the prominent conservatives expressing his support for reform of current mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

I think we had a trend in America for a long time on mandatory minimums where we took away discretion from judges. I think there’s an appreciation that that approach has some collateral damage—that that approach is missing in many ways…I think there is a new appreciation that we need to give judges more discretion in these areas.

-Paul Ryan

The push to pass the Smarter Sentencing Act is gaining momentum, as almost a year has passed since its introduction in the House in October 2013. Hopefully, with continued support for this legislation, it will soon become law and alleviate the growing problems associated with extreme mandatory minimum drug sentences.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Barnellbe via Wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are We Nearing the End of Failed Mandatory Minimum Sentences? appeared first on Law Street.

A federal judge ruled last week that California’s death penalty system is unconstitutional because it violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. This decision is notable, but not in the way you might think. U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney did not rule the death penalty itself to be unconstitutional, but rather the conditions that accompany it–namely the long wait for California’s death row prisoners.

California has not executed an inmate since a different federal court put a hold on executions in 2006. U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled that the use of the death penalty was cruel and unusual because the technicians administering the drugs were mostly untrained and had little experience with the drugs they were using. As a result, California had to stop executing inmates until they came up with new protocols for humane executions. This has not happened yet, so the ban has remained.

Yet California has not stopped giving felons death sentences. They currently have 748 inmates on death row, the most of any state.

Carney argues that leaving the fate of these prisoners uncertain is more cruel and unusual than killing them. In his eyes, prisoners have the right to know if they are going to die or not. Here’s a notable excerpt of his ruling:

“California juries have imposed the death sentence on more than 900 individuals since 1978. Yet only 13 of those 900 have been executed by the State. Of the remainder, 94 have died of causes other than execution by the State.”

Carney’s problem with California’s death penalty is not the pain it causes but the arbitrariness of it all. More death row inmates in California have died in their jail cells than have been executed. None of these inmates knew how their end would come. There is no way to tell which death row inmates will ever actually be killed. In fact, the death of an inmate is often not based on legitimate factors, such as severity of crime, but on unpredictable factors like length of appeal.

Carney argues that a death penalty must be administered fairly, and not just based on who can appeal their case the longest. Inmates with a shorter appeals process have a greater chance of being killed once California sorts out its implementation problems.

This decision is notable because it is the first time that a federal judge has ever ruled that delays in death row proceedings are a form of cruel and unusual punishment. This is especially interesting because the Supreme Court has previously ruled that delays are not a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Carney seems to be bucking a precedent set by the highest court.

Granted, there will be an appeal. It is possible, even likely, that an appeals court will side with the Supreme Court and rule that delays are not cruel and unusual but merely a normal part of the death penalty process. Still, the fact that a court ruled that a prisoner has the right to know if or when he or she will be killed is significant.

California could potentially get the death penalty back if they sped up the process with which they kill their criminals. But now that a new precedent has been set, states with a large backlog of death row inmates should prepare for some legal challenges.

The list of states with many inmates on death row may have new additions soon–states are running out of the drugs necessary for lethal injection, and experiments with other drug cocktails have not gone well. Some states are continuing with experimentation. Some are trying out new and untested drugs. However, it is likely that many will have to wait for a more viable option to present itself. It is possible that this waiting could be found to be cruel and unusual punishment for those on death row. Only time will tell, but this ruling has the chance to change the nature of capital punishment in the United States.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Michael Coghlan via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cruel and Unusual: California Death Penalty Delays appeared first on Law Street.