Access to The Champion archive is one of many exclusive member benefits. It’s normally restricted to just NACDL members. However, this content, and others like it, is available to everyone in order to educate the public on why criminal justice reform is a necessity.
There was a recent trial in Texas involving two border patrol agents who shot an unarmed drug smuggler in the backside as he ran away from them. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean fired 15 shots, and afterwards they picked up the shell casings and decided not to report the incident. The agents refused a plea deal, thinking no jury would convict “cops” for shooting a Mexican.
Because of mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Ramos and Compean received lengthy prison sentences (11 and 12 years, respectively). These sentences have sparked an outrage among grassroots organizations and lawmakers. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone denied a motion for the two to remain free on bond pending appeal.
Supporters of the border agents have deemed the judge’s ruling a “disgraceful act” and said the government should be ashamed for taking the word of a drug smuggler. They have started a petition demanding a presidential pardon for the two men now viewed by many as heroes.
I believe the outrage is misplaced. The plight of Ramos and Compean should serve as a catalyst for us to look at all the injustices of mandatory sentencing. Federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws have been around for 21 years, and are controversial partly because they require toughened penalties in certain drug and gun offenses. This sentencing scheme was designed for traffickers – individuals at the top of drug organizations who are responsible for bringing tons of drugs into our country. For the most part, however, the result of these laws has been to ensnare street-level dealers and others low on the drug-dealing food chain. Individuals wearing both conservative and liberal stripes have criticized mandatory sentencing laws, including Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court. In an August 2003 speech at the annual meeting of the American Bar Association, he said, “I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences. In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.”
Federal prison populations are soaring, filled with nonviolent drug offenders. Programs that divert low-level offenders to substance abuse treatment programs rather than prison can save the system millions of dollars. A recent study by research organization RTI International compared 130 drug offenders serving time to 130 offenders placed in a treatment program. Participants in the treatment program had lower recidivism rates than those who had been incarcerated. Moreover, the drug treatment program saved the criminal justice system more than $7 million during the six-year period during which the study was conducted.
Mandatory minimum sentences seem out of place in a society that believes the punishment should fit the crime. Mandatories give prosecutors control over sentencing. Prosecutors determine the charge, and the charge determines if the sentence is mandatory. The sentencing laws should allow judges the flexibility to look behind the words on a verdict sheet, consider the facts and circumstances of each case, and determine appropriate punishment on an individual basis. “One size fits all” sentencing doesn’t work. Mandatory minimum sentencing has been ineffective in achieving its goals of (1) reducing substance abuse and crime, and (2) increasing penalties for the most serious offenders.
Mandatory sentences are often unjust and irrational, and they don’t take into account an offender’s motivation or the likelihood of recidivism. These laws also don’t take into account the spouses and children left behind, such as the three children of Jose Alonso Compean, aged twelve years to four months, who might have to grow up without a father in their lives.
Judges are appointed because of their qualifications. We emasculate them when it comes to sentencing. We should restore discretion to judges and allow them to do their jobs without interference from Congress.
