Mandatory minimum ensnares law-abiding Marine January 27, 2012
Posted by admin in : Current News , add a commentHere’s a good editorial from Julie Stewart:
George Orwell said, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” I have been reminded of that sentiment recently after watching politicians and pundits criticize the imposition of excessive mandatory minimum sentences and then blame everyone and everything except the actual sentencing law that required the excessive punishments.
The latest example of this is playing out in New York City. According to a news report, Ryan Jerome, a 28-year-old former Marine Corps gunner, went to the Big Apple last September with the hope of selling $15,000 worth of jewelry. Mr. Jerome carried a gun to protect his valuable stash. After reading some inaccurate information on the Internet, he mistakenly believed that he could carry the firearm in New York because he was licensed to carry one in his home state of Indiana.
The trip to New York was Mr. Jerome’s first and he decided to go sightseeing. He tried leaving his gun in the hotel safe but it was full, so he brought it with him. When he arrived at the Empire State Building, Mr. Jerome approached a security guard to ask where he should check his gun. The security officer called the police. Mr. Jerome was arrested and forced to spend the next two days in jail.
Because of New York’s mandatory minimum sentencing law for guns, Mr. Jerome faces a minimum prison sentence of 3 1/2 years. He could receive as much as 15 years. He also happens to be the latest of many tourists who have been arrested for unknowingly violating New York’s tough gun law. Football fans will recognize this law as the same one that sent New York Jets wide receiver Plaxico Burress to prison.
The case has generated some buzz in the blogosphere. Gun rights supporters want the Manhattan district attorney to decline prosecution. Other commentators note that Mr. Jerome is a former Marine and sought to comply with the law by researching it before his trip. As Mr. Jerome told the New York Post, “If I had known, I never would have brought that gun with me, no matter how much gold I had.”
Perhaps the prosecutor should exercise discretion in this case and not bring charges, but the reason the stakes are so high is because the law carries a mandatory minimum sentence that certainly does not fit people like Ryan Jerome. Without the mandatory minimum, a dutiful prosecutor’s insistence on charging every technical violation of the law could be tempered by a judge’s willingness to consider the unique facts and circumstances of each case and defendant, and to fashion an appropriate sentence. But a mandatory minimum sentence eliminates any judicial discretion.
In many ways, the Jerome case reminds me of the prosecution of U.S. border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. They were sentenced in 2006 to more than a decade in prison after a jury found them guilty of shooting an unarmed illegal immigrant and covering it up. The agents’ long sentences were required by a federal mandatory minimum sentencing law. Nevertheless, members of Congress hauled the prosecutor who tried the case to Washington for a grilling. They couldn’t believe he had the audacity to use the law they had written. Seeing that the judge had no discretion, many members of Congress then asked President George W. Bush to intervene, which he ultimately did by commuting the agents’ sentences.
The problem with these cases (and thousands of others just like them) is that one-size-fits-all-sentencing laws do not deliver the kind of individualized justice that Americans have a right to expect. Not all crimes and offenders are alike. That doesn’t mean New York needs two laws for every offense – i.e., one gun law to prosecute armed robbers and another to prosecute inadvertent offenders such as Ryan Jerome. But it does mean politicians should refrain from inserting mandatory minimum penalties into their laws since they cannot foresee every situation to which they might be applied.
Ramos and Compean were relatively lucky. Perhaps Mr. Jerome will get lucky, too, and the Manhattan D.A. will find some way to resolve the case without Mr. Jerome going to jail. But it’s not reasonable to expect that presidents and governors are going to be able (or willing) to save every unforeseen defendant from being saddled with an ill-fitting mandatory sentence. The only way to make sure that the time fits the crime is to get rid of mandatory minimum sentences and let judges consider all the relevant factors in crafting individualized sentences.
Portland January Action Team Meeting January 9, 2012
Posted by admin in : Current News , 1 comment so farThe Partnership for Safety and Justice will be holding their next Portland Action Team Meeting on Monday, January 9th! These meetings are a chance for members and activists to get together and build community while enhancing their advocacy skills.
We’ll be going over some significant changes at PSJ that have resulted from our strategic planning, as well as talking about our recent youth justice victory. We’ll also be discussing our plans for the upcoming legislative session in February, because we’ll the help of our members soon!
The Commission on Public Safety delivered their report on sentencing to Governor Kitzhaber on December 29th. The recommendations could mean big changes for Oregon’s criminal justice system, and we’ll weigh in with our thoughts. We’ll also be asking you to participate in an activity that has worked well for our allies – calling the state legislature during our meeting to leave messages about the importance of the Commission’s findings. Members will be given some talking points, but please come prepared by looking up your representatives so that you know who to call beforehand. If you have time, take a look at the report itself.
Please contact Naivasha if you’re interested in attending!
825 NE 20th Ave, Suite 250
Portland, OR
naivasha@safetyandjustice.org
FBI Updates Definiton of Rape January 6, 2012
Posted by admin in : Current News , add a commentThe Obama administration on Friday announced a significant expansion of the FBI’s definition of rape, which will now cover several forms of sexual assault and include male rape.
Justice Department officials said that the revision would make reporting of the crime more accurate and would provide a better understanding of its effects on victims.
Since 1929, rape has been defined as “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” That definition, which included only men having sex with women without their consent, excluded other forms of sexual assault, such as oral penetration and rape of men.
The new wording, announced by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., covers those and several other forms of sexual assault. It will be used in the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Report, which draws on data submitted by local police departments, and will likely prompt a rise in reported rapes nationwide, law enforcement officials said.
Although most state rape statutes already contain a broader definition of the crime, officials said the federal revision holds deep significance, since the FBI’s reports are often synonymous in the public mind with crime rates. The FBI data is also used by policymakers to understand crime and propose anti-crime initiatives.
“This send a powerful message that … rape is rape,’’ Susan B. Carbon, director of the Justice Department’s Office on Violence Against Women, said in a conference call with reporters. “And it’s rape even if you’re a man; it’s rape even if you are raped with an object and even if you were too drunk to consent.’’
Administration officials said the change, which will take several years to fully implement, was driven primarily Vice President Biden — author of the Violence Against Women Act when he was in the Senate — and the White House Council on Women and Girls.
Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to President Obama and the council’s chairwoman, said the revised definition is “a major policy change that will lead to more accurate reporting and a far more complete understanding of this devastating crime.’’
An FBI police advisory board recently recommended the change, which had been pushed by supporters of womens’ rights. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III signed off last month.
In 2010, there were an estimated 84,767 rapes reported nationwide under the FBI’s current definition. Officials could not specify how much they expect the reporting of rapes to increase.
The new wording drew immediate praise from Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and from advocates for women.
“All victims of these horrendous crimes deserve justice and should have access to the comprehensive services that will help them rebuild their lives,” Leahy said. “This updated, more inclusive, definition will bring added emphasis to sexual assault, which often goes unreported, and as a result, unprosecuted.”
Calling the change “a big win for women,’’ Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said, “With a modern, broader definition, FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics will finally show the true breadth of this violence that affects so many women’s lives.”
Oregon’s Criminal Sentencing Policy: Reform? Or Rebuild? January 2, 2012
Posted by admin in : Current News , 1 comment so farA report on sentencing in Oregon’s criminal justice system was delivered to Gov. Kitzhaber Dec. 29. The Commission on Public Safety started work last August, charged with looking at how to streamline the state’s $1.4 billion corrections budget without hurting public safety. The report recommends that the commission continue its work through 2012. It also recommends changes that could mean shorter sentences for some.
Experts who spoke Dec. 9 at a Multnomah County conference on children and teens in the criminal justice system, argued for a complete policy rethink.
We need to take a more holistic approach,” said Judge Patricia Martin. “What if we thought of juvenile court like an emergency triage.”
Under Measure 11, Oregon teens who commit serious crimes are charged and sentenced as adults. And DA’s around the state have used their powers under Measure 11 to lengthen youth sentences. Currently more than one in 10 of those charged with Measure 11 crimes, and one in five of those charged with Robbery II are teens, resulting in 100 – 200 more imprisoned young people (aged 15- 23). But that approach found no support from Martin and other experts, who said harsh sentences do nothing to help troubled kids become responsible adults.
One Family One Judge
Judge Martin said families should be assigned one judge who deals with every problem facing that family, whether the issue is neglect, abuse or delinquent behavior.
“Our judicial system is segregated. The problem is my families and kids don’t come segregated.”
Juvenile courts should be able to call on experts in mental health, education, drug treatment: whatever a family needs to deal with all of its problems, and legal issues in one place.
“And if we can have drug courts, why not mental health treatment courts?” she said.
A juvenile and family judge in Cook County, Ill., Martin is President of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. She has seen thousands of kids and families go through the court system. Most of those young people would become productive citizens with the right help, she says, but the justice system sets them up to fail.
“We shouldn’t leave them with convictions,” said Judge Patricia Martin. “Why haven’t we thought about automatic expungement for juveniles?
“Do you know how many kids in child protection can’t get a job because they have a conviction?”
United States of Incarceration?
A staggering one in three Americans have been arrested by the time they are 25, a new federal study reported this month. The crimes? Most common are arson, disorderly behavior, vandalism, burglary and theft.
Researchers said the figures may reflect a criminal justice system that has become increasingly inflexible and focused on punishment to the detriment of prevention.
International studies show the United States jails more people than any other Western democracy: 714 for every 100,000 people, compared to 96 for Germany, 91 for France and 142 for Britain which has the highest rate in Europe.
At the Dec. 9 conference, Judge Martin condemned what she called “fake” crimes. A boy in a state institution took a candy bar from the storeroom, she said, and was charged with trespassing on state property and robbery. Consequences? Yes, she said. Criminal charges? No.
“It just doesn’t make sense. We have to be smarter about how we help kids and families.”
Safety and Joy Can Prevent Crime
Jonathan Cloud, a delinquency prevention specialist, said brain development research should guide policy. Children are hardwired to mirror the adults around them, and the experiences they have, he said. Comfort and safety are essential and so are joy and pleasure.
“The best things you all can do, is construct experiences that turn the brain on and help kids understand what they can do.”
Cloud said that young people from their teens to mid-20s are hardwired to take risks, challenge authority and seek excitement. Breaking rules and making mistakes have to be understood as efforts to find their own unique path in life.
“The kids you’re working with don’t have a lot of positive “files” to draw from: The guy down the street who beats people up; the drug dealer on the corner; whatever is on late night TV. A kid in domestic violence will have the neuro track for aggression locked in.
“I want to load his file cabinet up with tons and tons of possible files to draw from, so that when he gets to 14 or 15 he has a lot of successful experiences to draw from.
“You can punish and contain all you want, but it adds nothing to the file system.”
Early Intervention Needed
Hill Walker, a researcher from the University of Oregon, called for more investment in prevention. Children with problems can be identified very early, he said. The research shows that when families get support from pre-kindergarten through 3rd grade, children don’t turn to crime.
“We wait and wait and wait to identify these children, while in meantime they are experiencing school failure and all kinds of chaos,” Walker said.
“If we could implement well half of what we know, we could radically improve the lives of students.”
The Commission on Public Safety weighed the costs of Measure 11 and other sentencing guidelines as well as its impact on young offenders, adult offenders and crime victims.
Commission: Prison sentencing dictated by heart, not head December 30, 2011
Posted by admin in : Current News , 1 comment so farA draft report by Gov. John Kitzhaber’s Commission on Public Safety says ballot measures instead of business principles have come to dominate prison sentencing in Oregon and that needs to change.
“Public safety demands a shift from using the heart to guide our investments to using rational business-like approaches,” according to the report, which is to be submitted to the governor on Friday.
The commission has been charged with examining long-term planning efforts on sentencing and public safety, specifically the felony sentencing system. It will require balancing the will of the voters, who have twice approved expensive mandatory minimum sentencing ballot measures, with scarce state dollars.
Costs have risen significantly in the prison system, what the report calls “Oregon’s most expensive resource.” The state Department of Corrections has been allotted $1.3 billion by the state general fund for the 2011-2013 budget, outpacing all other departments except schools and human services.
The report sets forth principles it hopes the Legislature adopts in the next biennium, including a greater reliance cost-benefit analysis when considering sentencing reforms and giving judges more discretion when they hand down sentences. The report contains few specific recommendations.
The commission is comprised of the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, two Republican legislators, two Democratic state legislators, former Gov. Ted Kulongoski — a Democrat — and a Salem business executive.
Prison costs have ballooned in recent years due in part to mandatory minimum sentences for some crimes, which have kept offenders in prison longer, and to higher health care costs for an aging prison population, the commission said.
Taxpayers spend on average more than $30,000 per year for each Oregon prisoner. The state Office of Economic Analysis released a prison forecast this year projecting that the number of prisoners will increase by 2,000 by the end of the decade, to nearly 16,000.
Prison costs have spiked since voters approved Measure 11 in 1994, which created mandatory minimum sentences for some violent crimes. Subsequent ballot measures —including one passed last year during the Great Recession — have added stiff sentences for other crimes and are forecast to cost the state more money.
In response to the draft report, the Oregon District Attorneys Association said the state’s sentencing policies are working, and said the commission’s focus solely on sentencing is an error.
“We believe that the Commission has missed the mark by focusing on only one aspect of the criminal justice system: sentencing,” according to the statement issued Thursday.
Clatsop County District Attorney Josh Marquis said the commission’s proposed guidelines could affect the length of time offenders serve in prison. Marquis said he wants to see offenders serve the sentences given them without reductions.
“The most important single value is truth in sentencing, not necessarily severity,” Marquis said.
When it comes to public safety in Oregon, perception is reality, the commission report said: Voters pass statewide ballot measures enforcing mandatory minimums, believing crime is on the rise. The opposite is true, the report argues. The crime rate has fallen in Oregon during the past 20 years and continues to fall.
Shannon Wright, associate director for the Partnership for Safety and Justice, said the commission rightly focused on alternatives to mandatory minimum sentences.
“It’s been almost two decades since Oregon began its experiment with mandatory minimums and they are a huge cost driver,” said Wright, whose group opposes mandatory minimum sentences.
The commission must balance its work with the will of the voters and the Legislature, which the report notes, but goes on to argue, “Neither the Legislature, nor the ballot initiative can adequately craft a ‘one size fits all’ sentence.”
“Appropriate sentencing law requires individual application,” the report says. “The new sentencing guidelines must empower the court by better distributing and structuring discretion between the executive and judicial branches of state government than does our current system.”
Measure 11 report gets national award November 20, 2011
Posted by admin in : Current News , add a commentA report by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission about mandatory minimum sentences has earned it a top national award.
The report formally is known as “Longitudinal Study of the Application of Measure 11 and Mandatory Minimums in Oregon,” by Michael Wilson, Craig Prins, and Kelly Officer. It won the 2011 Phillip Hoke Award from the Justice Research and Statistics Association, and is presented to statistical analysis centers for translating statistics and research into informational reports on public policy.
The Oregon report won the award in the category of research/policy analysis for small centers with five or fewer full-time professional staff members. There are only two categories, and awards in each category are given to small and larger centers.
Mandatory Minimum Sentences Criticized November 14, 2011
Posted by admin in : Current News , add a commentUpdate from FAMM President Julie Stewart:
The case against mandatory minimums grows stronger every day!!!
On October 31, the U.S. Sentencing Commission released a comprehensive new report criticizing the most widely used mandatory minimum sentencing laws. The report echoes many of the arguments that FAMM has been making against mandatory sentences for years.
To make sure that the politicians and public heard about the new government report, FAMM distributed a press statement and I published an op-ed outlining some of the report’s major conclusions. Then, just this morning, The New York Times weighed in with an outstanding editorial that cites the new report as a sufficient basis for repealing all mandatory minimums. Of course, we couldn’t agree more.
There is a lot of work to do to make it happen, but every day our case gets a little stronger.
Another shot at justice November 1, 2011
Posted by admin in : Current News , 2 commentsFrom Julie Stewart, FAMM President:
Today over 12,000 people in federal prison serving sentences for crack cocaine violations get another shot at justice! As of today, they can apply for sentence reductions that could shave up to three years off their sentences!
This opportunity is the last step in the crack cocaine reforms that started in 2010 when Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act. This change was long overdue, but it would never have happened without your help.
As soon as the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to make the crack guideline changes retroactive, we prepared information to help FAMM members understand how to take advantage of this opportunity! We are thrilled to learn that many members are getting out today and many more will follow in the months ahead.
If you work for FAMM, contribute to FAMM, or simply support our mission, days like today are among the best. Abstract ideas of justice and fairness become very real – as real as the individuals walking through a prison gate and into the waiting arms of their loved ones.
If you know someone who is still uncertain as to whether they are eligible for relief or how to obtain early release, please consult FAMM’s fact sheet.
Unfortunately, not all prisoners will benefit from the new crack sentences, especially those subject to mandatory minimum sentences. Only Congress can make the Fair Sentencing Act’s changes to the crack mandatory minimum sentences retroactive. Bipartisan legislation to accomplish that goal has been introduced but has not received consideration.
To all our members who will be rejoining their families and communities today and in the coming months, we wish you nothing but the best. Stay in touch. To those families still fighting for a second chance, please know that your fight is our fight – and we have a lot of fight left in us.
New Oregon commission tackles spiraling prison costs, misconceptions about crime October 29, 2011
Posted by admin in : Current News , add a commentOnce again, convicted thief Dean J. Sanders is costing taxpayers $30,000 a year.
He’s back in prison, where he’ll live at public expense for as long as 28 more years. The 40-year-old Eugene mechanic landed in a cell this month after he was caught selling parts from stolen cars.
With that, he also landed at the center of one of Oregon’s most daunting challenges: how to balance public safety against public expense. State officials say people like Sanders are draining government budgets at a pace that can’t be sustained. Already, Oregon’s public safety system — police, prosecutors, prisons — consumes more than $6 billion a year.
Now a seven-member Commission on Public Safety appointed by Gov. John Kitzhaber is tackling the problem. The commission began work in August and must report back to Kitzhaber by Dec. 15.
Oregonians have much at stake.
Prison spending alone has soaked up ever more state money, hitting $1.3 billion out of the state’s $13.6 billion two-year general fund budget and squeezing everything from spending on adult foster care to children’s health. The cost has grown even as crime rates have declined — yet more growth is on the horizon.
The state Corrections Department projects that it will need an additional $600 million over the next 10 years to house 2,000 more inmates, an estimate that comes as the Legislature prepares to convene Feb. 1 for another round of cuts to state programs.
Finding ways to control prison costs is the core mission of the new commission, following the lead of states from coast to coast. Challenges include opposition from prosecutors and the public to lighter sentences, widespread misconceptions that crime is rising, and even squabbles over the accuracy of inmate projections and the rate that convicts return to prison.
Supreme Court Justice Paul DeMuniz, chairman of the new commission, said the biggest challenge could be changing public opinion.
“We need to address the disconnect between the large drop in crime and the public perception that they’re not safer,” DeMuniz said. “We need to explore reasons Oregonians do not feel safe.”
Texas finds success
The Commission on Public Safety is poking into all corners of Oregon’s criminal justice system — juvenile crime, mental health, drug and alcohol addictions, parole and probation, and the prison sentences blamed for a run-up in an inmate population that stands at 14,000.
It’s also turning to national experts and other states that have embraced “justice reinvestment,” the idea that public money does more good when spent on prevention and rehabilitation than on building prisons to hold more inmates for longer terms.
Experts say research now shows what’s effective at preventing crime and rehabilitating criminals, a switch from years of “program of the month” trial and error. Criminal justice professionals are more skilled at sorting criminals by risk, with more confidence in their ability to predict which offenders can be supervised outside a cell.
“We know what will make us safer,” DeMuniz said.
Reform supporters also have a powerful example of success: Texas, a state never known for coddling criminals.
In 2007, legislators faced $500 million in additional prison costs in their next budget in anticipation of 17,000 more inmates in five years. Led by Republican state Rep. Jerry Madden, they instead poured $241 million into community programs to head off criminal behavior and tighten supervision of parolees.
The effort paid off. An inmate population of 155,319 in August 2007 had reached only 156,382 by Sept. 30 of this year. Texas this year closed a prison — a first for the state.
The key, Madden said, was giving conservative and liberal legislators alike something to support. For conservatives, that turned out to be leaner government operations — more results at less cost. For liberals, that meant focusing more on rehabilitation such as drug treatment than retribution.
“We were still being tough on those who we needed to be tough with but making the best utilization of the criminal justice system,” said Madden, who recently shared his insights with the Oregon commission.
Oklahoma, meanwhile, has the country’s highest incarceration rate for women and ranks third for men.
“We all run on the platform of being tough on crime,” said Oklahoma House Speaker Kris Steele, a Republican. “If you’re going to be tough on crime, the solution is to lock everyone up.”
But, Steele said, the state could no longer afford to do that. This summer, leaders started their own hunt for reforms and are now preparing to travel the state to raise public awareness.
Shrinking state budgets are forcing such conversations — and creating unusual alliances.
“For the first time in a long time, you’re seeing the appetite for fiscal conservatism matching up with the appetite for socially progressive approaches to justice,” said Robert Coombs, senior policy analyst with the Council of State Governments Justice Center. In Ohio and North Carolina, he said, Democrats launched reform efforts, but Republicans kept them going.
“Soft on crime” card
Still, Oregon’s work is not without debate. The Oregon District Attorneys Association, for one, disputes the inmate forecast and doesn’t want it used to dilute prison terms that prosecutors say are a key reason crime rates have dropped.
Officials also argue over recidivism rates — the percentage of inmates convicted of new crimes within three years of their release. The Corrections Department calculates that 28 percent of convicts reoffend, but prosecutors say the number counts only felonies, offering an incomplete measure of how well prison and parole programs work.
Another big challenge will be convincing residents that they aren’t as threatened as they think. Portland State University researchers last year found that more than half the Oregonians they surveyed thought crime rates were on the rise.
FBI statistics show otherwise. From 1990 to 2010, violent crime rates dropped from five per 1,000 residents to 2.5, and property crime rates fell from 51 per 1,000 residents to 30 — both the lowest in more than 40 years.
“The public perception is what drives the political side of the equation,” Kitzhaber said. “It’s easy to play the ‘soft on crime’ card. I don’t underestimate the challenge of changing that paradigm.”
Offenders such as Sanders and Delandre M. Ingram don’t help.
Sanders first went to prison in 2008, sentenced for 28 crimes ranging from auto theft to burglary. He served 22 months, returning to Lane County in early 2010. Before long, he was taking drugs and running a “chop shop” outside Junction City, parting stolen cars with a backhoe and burying the scraps.
Police pinned him for 15 cars, including one stolen the morning of their raid last May. Sanders was convicted at trial and began a 28-year sentence Oct. 6.
Ingram, 43, went to prison for the third time in 2004 after robbing a check-cashing store. He got out in early 2010 and convinced his parole officer that he had forsaken crime. He hadn’t.
Five months after his release, Ingram and a partner came up behind a woman locking an east Portland check-cashing store for the night. They forced her inside at gunpoint and took several thousand dollars. Ingram then robbed another check-cashing store, clubbing a woman employee with his pistol.
He pleaded guilty last April, accepting 11 1/2 years in prison.
Kitzhaber said that keeping others from the same path will require reforms as dramatic as those crafted for education and health care. Others agree.
“If we simply maintain current practices, the resulting trajectory of our costs is unsustainable,” said state Sen. Jackie Winters, R-Salem, a commission member. “We must identify and promote wise choices.”
Fall FAMM Newsletter Is Available October 28, 2011
Posted by admin in : Current News , add a commentThe Fall FAMM Newsletter has just been released. There is a link at the bottom of this post. I wanted to include here the great message by Julie Stewart, FAMM President.
Happy Birthday, FAMM! Who could have imagined two decades ago that my brother’s conviction for growing marijuana would lead to the launch of an organization that would last 20 years! I would never have believed it. I was sure we could “fix” this problem of long mandatory minimum sentences within five years and I would move on to do something else with my life.
Ha! Little did I know how much resistance we would face to the principle of justice that is commonly accepted throughout this country – that the punishment should fit the crime and the offender’s role in the crime. What could be clearer? What could be more American?! Yet, in Congress and state houses everywhere, lawmakers have manipulated that principle to suggest that it means being soft on crime. Being fair is being soft? No, I don’t accept that interpretation. And neither do you. And that’s why FAMM is still here, 20 years later, fighting for the kind of individualized sentencing that everyone deserves.
FAMM’s focus on individualized sentences means we oppose mandatory minimums for all crimes. That’s why you’ll see on pages 8-9 a number of federal bills we’re trying to strip mandatory minimums from. Even if the sentences aren’t long, allowing them to get through reinforces the idea that mandatory minimums are okay and encourages other legislators to propose them. No sentence is acceptable if it prevents a judge from considering all the facts of the case. Take a look at the profiles on page 14 and you’ll see how one-size-fits-all sentencing fails miserably in delivering justice. That’s the message we have to hammer home again and again.
Twenty years ago when I wrote the first FAMM newsletter, I closed it by saying, “Your life is important to us. As the saying goes, ‘the wheels of justice turn very slowly,’ but we are trying to speed them up. You are not alone in this struggle.”
Those words still ring true. Last week I received a thank you note from a federal prisoner who was sentenced in the early 90s to life in prison for a nonviolent crack cocaine offense. After FAMM’s crack victory in 2007, his life sentence was lifted and changed to 30 years. After FAMM’s crack victory this year (see page 7), he is expecting to be released by the end of the year. He ended his letter with these words, “You are the reason I have this life sentence off me now. I am a friend always.” His words went straight to my heart. And while I alone cannot take credit for his imminent freedom, it is profoundly satisfying to know that FAMM – all of us together – have forced the wheels of justice to move faster and prevented this man from living out the rest of his life in prison.
After 20 years of nose to the grindstone, it’s time to pause and celebrate our 20 years of victories (see timeline on page 4). But when the candles are blown out and the cake is eaten, it’s time to get back to work to so we can change the course of thousands more lives.
My very best –
Julie Stewart
Loading ...