U.S. Orders More Steps to Curb Stiff Drug Sentences

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/us/politics/administration-orders-new-step-to-curtail-stiff-drug-sentences.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

2. Category of Problem: #drugs

3. Level of Problem: National

4. Importance/affect on families/individuals: The U.S. has only 5 percent of the world's population, and has 25% of its prisoners. The Justice Department at the Federal level (under Obama's Administration) is seeking to follow the efforts pioneered by the states (including conservative leaning Texas and South Carolina) to control taxpayer money that is spent on incarcerating huge numbers of nonviolent offenders. If this policy is implemented I believe it will allow money to be reallocated to other "hot topics" of concern for Americans. This policy also affects non-violent individuals who may have simply found themselves at the wrong place at the wrong time--who are facing low level federal drug offenses. The new policy calls for stripping out any references to specific quantities of illicit substances that would trigger mandatory minimum sentencing laws. It also applies to defendants who meet four criteria: their offense did not involve violence, the use of a weapon, or selling drugs to minors; they are not leaders of a criminal organization; they have no significant ties to large-scale gangs or drug trafficking organizations; and they have no significant criminal histories.

5. My input: I feel this policy is very interesting and will serve as a needed update to policy on the federal level. It is interesting that the current policies in place are a result of the government's "tough-on-crime" stance imposed a generation ago amid the crack cocaine epidemic, and that these policies are what resulted in an 800% increase in the number of prisoners in the U.S. at a time when the national population grew by only a third. I do feel that by reserving the most severe prison terms for serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers or kingpins, we can better enhance public safety. Our focus then could be on proven strategies for deterrence and rehabilitation and we can do this also by making our expenditures smarter and more productive. One particularly interesting addition to this legislation would be, that for cases in which a defendant has already been found guilty but no sentence has yet been imposed, prosecutors have discretion about whether to apply the new policy. I find this interesting that for implementing the new policy the federal government is allowing some prosecutor to determine the fate of someone's life. (This to me sounds like the government is too lazy to make a bunch of little amendments that would help to more fairly ease the new policy into implementation). Prosecutors are "encouraged to apply the policy in guilty-plea cases where legally and practically feasible," but they should generally "not seek relief for a defendant who chose to go to trial." For some reason the last part really irked me. Most people appeal their cases and go to trial so they can have a better chance at justice being served, so those people obviously really felt they were sentenced unfairly or unjustly which is why they are back at it in trial. I cant believe the government wants to exclude these individuals who want to keep fighting for reduced sentences/justice/what have you. This information makes me happy though that the issue of providing free food and housing to inmates nationally is on the forefront of revision. These inmates are a drain on tax payer dollars and many of them are way too comfortable in our "system."