Rep. Scott, Julie Stewart and Rep. Davis at the symposiumFAMM joins Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice
In Urging Congress to Reform Federal Sentencing Policies
WASHINGTON, D.C.: The time is ripe for Congress to enact meaningful reform of federal sentencing policies, said U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, FAMM President Julie Stewart and over a dozen sentencing experts at a symposium today on Capitol Hill sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and Harvard Law School.
Attorney General Eric Holder reiterated the U.S. Department of Justice’s support for replacing the controversial 100:1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine with an even 1:1 ratio, and urged Congress to support individualized sentencing. Said Holder, “I believe we have a moment of time that must be seized...,” he asserted. “The desire to have an almost mechanical system of sentencing has led us away from individualized, fact-based determinations that I believe, within reason, should be our goal.” Go to http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-0906242.html to read Holder’s statement.
Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, encouraged Congress to consider trusting the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines to determine appropriate sentences based on the facts of the case. "It means you trust the organization [the U.S. Sentencing Commission] you set up that they are not going to be overly lenient but they are going to be rational,” said Justice Breyer.
Julie Stewart, President of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), a nonprofit organization leading the fight for mandatory minimum reform since 1991, noted that support for reforming mandatory minimums among lawmakers, judges, policymakers and the public has been building for 20 years and is reaching a crescendo.
“We at FAMM believe we have reached a critical moment in this effort. Mandatory minimums are unjust because one-size-fits-all sentences don't allow punishment that fits the crime. Two decades ago, flawed assumptions about crack cocaine drove Congress to adopt a particularly harsh sentencing structure when it established new mandatory minimums for drug offenses. Now, those assumptions have been repeatedly disproven and discredited,” said Stewart. “We urge Congress to eliminate mandatory minimums altogether. It’s time for Congress to act.” Click here to download Stewart's statement.
Public attitudes on the effectiveness of mandatory sentencing laws support reform. A 2008 FAMM poll found that fully 78 percent of Americans (nearly eight in 10) agree that courts – not Congress – should determine an individual’s prison sentence. Six in 10 (59 percent) oppose mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenders. A majority of Americans (57 percent) polled said they would likely vote for a candidate for Congress who would eliminate all mandatory minimums for nonviolent crimes.
As Congress prepares to act, they can take comfort in lessons from the nation’s previous experiment with mandatory sentences for drug offenses. FAMM’s comprehensive report, “Correcting Course: Lessons from the 1970 Repeal of Mandatory Minimums,” describes how Congress created mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug offenders in 1951 and repealed them in 1970 because the laws failed to stop drug abuse, addiction and trafficking. Congress repealed mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses in 1970 – and not one lawmaker who voted for repeal was defeated at the polls for that vote. The full report is online at: http://www.famm.org/Repository/Files/8189_FAMM_BoggsAct_final.pdf.
Established in 1991, Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) is a national, nonprofit organization that is the national voice for fair and proportionate sentencing laws. FAMM believes the punishment should fit the crime and the individual. FAMM represents a diverse group of attorneys, judges, prisoners, families and concerned citizens. For more information on FAMM, visit www.famm.org.
-30-