Signs of reform
In 1993, Rep. Don Edwards (D-Calif.), then vice chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, reintroduced H.R. 957, his bill to repeal all federal mandatory sentences. In the face of continued support of mandatory sentences, it stood little chance of enactment. However, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), agreed to hold a hearing and called judges, prosecutors, prisoners and family members to testify for and against the bill.
Far from being a rational discussion of sentencing policy, the hearing degenerated into a bully-pulpit session by Rep. Schumer, who ridiculed the idea of changing sentencing laws for drug offenders. FAMM President Julie Stewart, New York FAMM member Joanne Larotunda and Nicole Richardson, a 19-year old woman serving a 10-year mandatory sentence, courageously faced Rep. Schumer and testified about the unnecessary waste of human lives caused by mandatory sentences. Schumer, unmoved by the testimony of a young woman serving a 10-year sentence for answering the telephone for her boyfriend, claimed there were really only a handful of "horror stories" associated with the federal mandatory minimums.
In his testimony, Judge Vincent Broderick, then chair of the Criminal Law Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, disagreed, saying, "I respectfully submit that the mandatory minimum system in place is itself the 'horror' story. ... There is no single issue affecting the work of the federal courts with respect to which there is unanimity. ... Most federal judges ... believe, and this is predicated on their experience, that mandatory minimums are the major obstacle to the development of a fair, rational, honest, and proportional federal criminal justice sentencing system."18