The House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held a hearing on Tuesday, July 14 to discuss legislation that would eliminate mandatory minimums and their unintended consequences. Testifying on behalf of FAMM was Julie Stewart, who told Congress that mandatory minimums are “un-American” and must be changed.
The three sentencing reform bills discussed at the hearing were H.R. 2934, the "Common Sense in Sentencing Act of 2009"; H.R. 834, the "Ramos and Compean Justice Act of 2009"; and H.R. 1466, the "Major Drug Trafficking Prosecution Act of 2009." All of the bills call for more judicial discretion and eliminate mandatory minimums to varying degrees.
Please note: None of the bills were scheduled for a vote on July 14, so mandatory minimum sentencing laws have not yet changed. However, the hearing was a promising step in the right direction.
In his opening statement, Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.), chair of the subcommittee, said, “Not only are mandatory minimum sentencing schemes costly and discriminatory, they make no sense.” For the next two hours, Scott and other lawmakers heard testimony from a panel of witnesses whose experience and backgrounds range from one side of the political spectrum to the other.
In addition to Julie Stewart, president and founder of FAMM, other witnesses on the panel were Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Relief; The Honorable Judge Julie E. Carnes, Chair of the Criminal Law Committee of the Judicial Conferences of the United States; Michael Sullivan, Partner at Ashcroft Sullivan, LLC; and T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council.
Stewart, Norquist and Carnes all called for a wholesale review of the current mandatory minimums policy, saying the best way to provide public safety and appropriate, cost effective sentences is to reform mandatory minimum sentencing laws.
“The benefits, if any, of mandatory minimum sentences do not justify this burden to taxpayers,” said Norquist.
Judge Carnes spoke to the detrimental effects of society’s distrust in the judicial system because of unjust mandatory minimums. “The robotic imposition of sentences that are viewed as unfair or irrational greatly undermines [judicial] respect,” she said.
“I believe as fervently as I did 15 years ago when I first testified to Congress that you should use your power to repeal mandatory minimum sentences,” Stewart told lawmakers. “After two decades of experimenting with mandatory minimum sentencing policies, the verdict is in: mandatory minimums are a failure. They are a failure today, just as they were in 1970 when a bipartisan Congress voted to repeal the Boggs Act, which required mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. FAMM urges Congress to learn from history and repeal mandatory minimums once more,” said Stewart.
Michael Sullivan, a former Massachusetts U.S. Attorney, was one of the few witnesses who testified in support of mandatory minimums. Even then, he agreed that some people are serving bizarre sentences as a result of mandatory minimums.
Again, it is important to note that none of the bills were scheduled for a vote on July 14, so mandatory minimum sentencing laws have not yet changed. However, the hearing was a promising step in the right direction.
To watch the hearing or to read testimony, please follow this link: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_090714.html
To FAMM’s poll and read the report Correcting Course please click here.