It appears that Rand Paul believes that it is beneficial for America to relax the current drug sentencing guidelines under federal law. One unintended consequence may be to put more petty thieves and dangerous drivers on the street – as well as step-up the need for politically-connected attorneys to allow “rich” people to skirt the law.  Read the press release for yourself.

Bipartisan Legislation To Give Judges More Flexibility For Federal Sentences Introduced  . . . Bill Would Expand ‘Safety Valve’ To All Federal Crimes

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced bipartisan legislation Wednesday to allow judges greater flexibility in sentencing federal crimes where a mandatory minimum punishment is considered unnecessary.

The bipartisan Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 expands the so-called “safety valve” that allows judges to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum in qualifying drug cases to all federal crimes.  By giving judges this greater flexibility, they will not be forced to administer needlessly long sentences for certain offenders, which is a significant factor in the ever-increasing Federal prison population and the spiraling costs that steer more and more of the justice budget toward keeping people in prison, rather than investing in programs that keep our communities safe.

“As a former prosecutor, I understand that criminals must be held accountable, and that long sentences are sometimes necessary to keep criminals off the street and deter those who would commit violent crime,” Leahy said.  “Our reliance on mandatory minimums has been a great mistake.  I am not convinced it has reduced crime, but I am convinced it has imprisoned people, particularly non-violent offenders, for far longer than is just or beneficial. It is time for us to let judges go back to acting as judges and making decisions based on the individual facts before them.  A one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing does not make us safer.”

Paul said that “Our country’s mandatory minimum laws reflect a Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all approach, which undermines the Constitutional Separation of Powers, violates the our bedrock principle that people should be treated as individuals, and costs the taxpayers money without making them any safer. This bill is necessary to combat the explosion of new federal criminal laws, many of which carry new mandatory minimum penalties.”

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, On the Introduction of S. 619, the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013
March 20, 2013

Today I join with Senator Paul to introduce the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013, which will start to take on the problem of the ever-increasing Federal prison population and spiraling costs that spend more and more of our justice budget on keeping people in prison thereby reducing opportunities to do more to keep our communities safe.  This bill will combat injustice in Federal sentencing and the waste of taxpayer dollars by allowing judges appropriate discretion in sentencing.

As a former prosecutor, I understand that criminals must be held accountable, and that long sentences are sometimes necessary to keep violent criminals off the street and deter those who would commit violent crime.  I have come to believe, however, that mandatory minimum sentences do more harm than good.  As Justice Kennedy said, “In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.”

Currently a “safety valve” provision allows low-level drug offenders to avoid mandatory minimum penalties if certain conditions are met.  The bill we introduce today would extend that safety valve to all Federal crimes subject to mandatory minimum penalties, allowing a judge to impose a sentence other than a statutorily designated mandatory sentence in cases in which key factors are present.   The judge would be required to provide notice to the parties and to state in writing the reasons justifying the alternative sentence.

The United States has a mass incarceration problem.  Between 1970 and 2010, the number of people incarcerated grew by 700 percent.  Although the United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population, we incarcerate almost a quarter of its prisoners.  At the end of 2011,

2.2 million people were in jail or prison in the United States.  That means we incarcerate roughly one in every 100 adults.

As of last week, the Federal prison population was over 217,000.  Almost half of those men and women are imprisoned on drug charges.  Compare this with 1980, when the Federal prison population was just 25,000.  Since 2000 alone, the Federal prison population has increased by 55 percent.

As more and more people are incarcerated for longer and longer, the resulting costs have placed an enormous strain on the Justice Department’s budget and have at the same time severely limited the ability to enact policies that prevent crimes effectively and efficiently.  At a time when our economy has been struggling to recover from the worst recession in the last 75 years and our budget is limited, we must look at the wasteful spending that occurs with over-incarceration.

At the Federal level, over the last five years, our prison budget has grown by nearly $2 billion.  In 2007, we spent approximately $5.1 billion on Federal prisons.  Last year, the Federal Bureau of Prisons requested more than $6.8 billion.  That means less money for Federal law enforcement, less aid to state and local law enforcement, and less funding for crime prevention programs and prisoner reentry programs.  In short, we have less to spend on the kinds of programs that evidence has shown work best to keep crime rates down.  Building more prisons and locking people up for longer and longer – especially nonviolent offenders – is not the best use of taxpayer money and is, in fact, an ineffective means of keeping our communities safe.

The proliferation of Federal mandatory minimum sentences is not the only factor driving the increase in incarceration rates, but it is an important factor.  The number of mandatory minimum penalties in the Federal code nearly doubled from 1991 to 2011.  Even those defendants not subject to mandatory minimums have seen their penalties increase as a result of mandatory penalties being incorporated into the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

In addition to driving up our prison population, mandatory minimum penalties can lead to terribly unjust results in individual cases.  This is why a large majority of judges oppose mandatory minimum sentences.  In a 2010 survey by the United States Sentencing Commission of more than 600 Federal district court judges, nearly 70 percent agreed that the existing safety valve provision should be extended to all Federal offenses.  That is exactly what our bill does.    Judges, who hand down sentences and can see close up when they are appropriate and just, overwhelmingly oppose mandatory minimum sentences.

Congress has too often moved in the wrong direction by imposing new mandatory minimum sentences unsupported by evidence while failing to reauthorize crucial programs like the Second Chance Act to rehabilitate prisoners who will be released to rejoin our communities.  Our reliance on mandatory minimums has been a great mistake.  I am not convinced it has reduced crime, but I am convinced it has imprisoned people, particularly non-violent offenders, for far longer than is just or beneficial.  It is time for us to let judges go back to acting as judges and making decisions based on the individual facts before them.  A one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing does not make us safer.

This is a bipartisan issue.  Sentencing reform works.  States, including very conservative states like Texas, that have implemented sentencing reform have saved money and seen their crime rates drop. 

I thank Senator Paul for his dedication to this cause and for working with me on this legislation.  I hope other Senators will join us in advancing this legislation and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used more efficiently to better prevent crime rather than simply building more prisons. <Source: Patrick Leahy - United States Senator for Vermont: Release>

Bottom line …

While there is something to be said for reducing outrageous drug sentences in individual states, let us remember that federal prosecutions are often reserved for dealers and large-scale drug pushers. Or, those who grow and distribute drugs.  While decriminalizing drugs and relaxing penalties is likely to have a significant impact on the costs of running prisons, we should also be cognizant that it also encourages the importation of drugs and criminal gang activity.

We need to wait to see if this legislation will feature enhancements for gang or weapon-related involvement which would be logical extensions of this legislation.

I also wonder how much Rand Paul understands that the democrat ideal of rehabilitation over punishment also demands an even larger government bureaucracy and commitment of taxpayer-funded programs?

Will Rand Paul turn into a John McCain or Lindsey Graham – “talking” conservative while advancing the democrat agenda?

Reference Links …

When the text of S.619 is available, it may be found here.

Related articles

LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON: STACKING A STRAW POLL WITH STUDENT VOTERS? -- Rand Paul wins The Washington Times-CPAC 2013 Straw Poll

GOP DYSFUNCTION ON DISPLAY: Old aisle-hopping RINOS, John McCain and his BFF Lindsay Graham attempt to marginalize Rand Paul

Will Canada heed U.S. warnings on mandatory minimum sentences?

Rand Paul and Pat Leahy Introduce a Bill to Fix Our Atrocious Federal Mandatory Minimum Laws

Senate bill seeks to cut down long mandatory sentences for drug offenses

"Bipartisan Legislation To Give Judges More Flexibility For Federal Sentences Introduced"

Sens. Leahy, Paul Introduce Federal Mandatory Minimum Reform Bill

Finally....someone might be waking up to why we have more people in prison than any other country on earth...

Lawmakers re-examine mandatory minimums

Senate Bill To Reform Harsh Mandatory Minimums Gets Bipartisan Support