Weldon Angelos was a low-level pot dealer in Utah when he was arrested for selling marijuana while carrying (but not using) a firearm. The charges carried a heavy mandatory minimum sentence: 55 years. The federal judge who had to impose the sentence for two drug transactions called it “unjust, cruel and even irrational.”
That is the problem with mandatory minimums. They are a one-size-fits-all solution that deprive judges of the ability to fashion a proportionate sentence. No one benefits from unnecessarily long prison sentences driven by mandatory minimums. Not the taxpayers, who shoulder the incarceration costs. Not the families of offenders, who often turn to welfare to make ends meet. And certainly not the convicts.
Yet, law enforcement loves mandatory minimums because they give prosecutors enormous leverage. Charging a mandatory minimum forces defendants into an untenable situation: take a plea or go to trial and risk a decades-long mandatory sentence. It’s no wonder that 95% of all criminal cases end with a plea bargain.
“Do the crime, do the time,” supporters like to say. Unfortunately, justice is not that simple. Every case is unique. That’s why we pay judges…to judge. Those wearing black robes are best suited to impose a just sentence that fits the crime. Mandatory minimums deny judges that ability.
Despite anecdotes spun by prosecutors, communities aren’t made any safer by mandatory minimums, nor do they reduce recidivism. Research shows that long sentences fail to deter drug crimes. And the cost of mandatory minimums deprives more effective crime control strategies (drug treatment, more cops on the beat, etc.) of funding.
But they do offer politicians the opportunity to look like they are doing something, even when data shows they don’t reduce crime. That is what’s going on in Boise. Some in the legislature are rushing to pass a new mandatory minimum sentencing law for fentanyl, but they are doing it in a way that will concentrate even more power in the hands of prosecutors.
The current proposal would establish a mandatory minimum for fentanyl, regardless of whether there is intent to distribute it to others. Tough penalties for fentanyl are certainly justified. The drug is responsible for thousands of deaths in Idaho and around the country. But any new fentanyl bill must allow for some judicial discretion, or a “safety valve,” so to speak. The current proposal does not.
Generally, a safety valve allows judges to impose a sentence below a mandatory minimum, but only for first-time, non-violent offenders. Everyone else is subject to the mandatory minimum. Narrowly tailored, this authority gives courts flexibility to ensure justice is done.
Safety valves are used by other states and the federal government. They aren’t partisan policies. The federal safety valve, for example, was expanded by none other than Donald Trump in his signature justice reform law, the First Step Act. (Trump also pardoned Weldon Angelos.)
Even though serious federal mandatory minimum penalties for fentanyl trafficking are already on the books, Idaho’s Legislature is rushing to pass its own bill. That’s good for federalism. But if politicians are unwilling to add a safety valve so prosecutors use their new powers on actual drug kingpins rather than on first-time offenders struggling with addiction, all of us will lose a little more of our liberty.
Most district attorneys are selfless civil servants working to protect their communities. But it is a dereliction of duty to give them unbridled power, no matter how righteous the cause. As legislators consider new fentanyl legislation, they should take a page from Ronald Reagan’s playbook: “Trust, but verify.”
Republican David Safavian is the Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the Conservative Political Action Coalition (CPAC). CPAC is based in Alexandria, Virginia.
Post a comment as anonymous
Report
Watch this discussion.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In