Rand Paul is Missing Something Huge on Sentencing Reform

I have a question for Rand Paul.

By Rachel Alexander Published on November 10, 2015

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is fond of saying that too many nonviolent offenders are serving time in prison for nonviolent drug crimes, especially minorities, and to fix this problem he and others in Congress want to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences. On Bill Maher’s HBO show last fall, he said, “I want to end the war on drugs because it’s wrong for everybody, but particularly because poor people are caught up in this, and their lives are ruined by it.” Yes, it seems unfair and disproportionate that people would be incarcerated in mass numbers for, say, recreational marijuaina use while others can get pass-out-on-the-floor drunk with no legal repercussions. But I have a question for Rand Paul at the next presidential debate or forum: Do you honestly think our legal system is putting away mass numbers of people for recreational drug use alone, or are you just pretending to believe this canard for political purposes?

And yes, it is a canard. That it is oft-repeated doesn’t make it so. As a former prosecutor, I’ve explained previously that criminals don’t go to prison for minor drug possession. To escape a more severe sentence for theft, armed robbery, etc., criminals — and yes, even violent criminals — are allowed to take a plea bargain for a lesser sentence, which often means pleading guilty to drug possession or selling drugs.

The tear-jerker stories of people who have been sentenced to 50 years in prison for getting caught in a few marijuana deals are not accurate. Drug laws tend to be like immigration laws — they are largely ignored. They are used instead to give defendants lighter sentences and as a plea-bargaining tool to move criminal cases quickly through an overburdened criminal justice system. Eliminating these laws would remove this tool. It would also eliminate the tutoring function of the law on this point, laws that even if rarely ever enforced remind citizens that there is something profoundly destructive about doing illegal drugs.

Do we not have enough young people moving from alcohol to marijuana to meth and ending up on the streets and eventually prison after some desperate burglary attempt in pursuit of fresh drug money? Or what about the prescription drug crisis, with many doctors now prescribing Oxycontin like candy and hurrying untold numbers of Americans on their way to heroin addiction and, in many cases, early death? Here’s a live experiment where a destructive drug became more widely available legally, and the consequences have been brutal.

It’s pretty to think that if the government waved the white flag in the drug war that our culture would reach a healthy equilibrium point of empty prisons, mostly restrained, recreational pot smokers, and the odd addict here and there finding his way to the warm and loving arms of a Betty Ford clinic. I have little doubt that most emergency room physicians will paint a much darker picture of what would await America. If Rand Paul wants to pursue sentencing reform, great. There’s room for improvements. But this first step is to play straight with the facts and the tragic consequences of recreational drug use in America.

Sentencing Reform: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The primary legislation being proposed in the U.S. Senate this year is The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015The legislation would cut mandatory minimum sentencing to five years from 10 for some crimes and to 15 years from 20 for others. It would reduce the “three-strikes” penalty to 25 years from life in prison for nonviolent drug offenders, cut mandatory prison sentences for nonviolent criminals, promote more early releases and institute programs to prepare offenders for life outside prison. Many of the new rules can be applied retroactively, and an estimated 6,500 inmates currently in prison would be able to request lighter sentences.

Republicans like Paul support the legislation because they have seen how the law is used to corruptly target conservatives, and want to save money with fewer incarcerations. Many conservative politicians have been selectively prosecuted using vague, overly broad laws, including Tom DeLay, Rick Perry, Bob McDonnell, Dinesh D’Souza, Ted Stevens and Rick Renzi to name a few. People who have lived ethical, impeccable lives — including even prosecutors themselves — have had relatively minor laws used against them to destroy their careers and lives merely because they were conservative. The left is drawn to the legal profession more than the right, so it has been able to manipulate the system against conservatives. The American Conservative Union Foundation’s Center for Criminal Justice Reform states how alarming this problem has become, “A frequent saying among the aggressive young lions in prosecutors’ offices is: ”Any prosecutor can convict a guilty man. It takes a GREAT prosecutor to convict an innocent man.”

The powerful Koch Brothers on the right are also advocates of sentencing reform, probably for similar reasons. The liberal watchdog group Bridge Project released a report, “The Koch Brothers’ Criminal Justice Pump-Fake,” saying the Kochs’ interest in reform is due to a 97-count indictment and prosecution charging the Koch Petroleum Group and several employees with violating the Clean Air Act at its refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas.

What it comes down to is the left is supporting this legislation because it lets more offenders off the hook. The left has a naive view of humanity, that everyone can become basically good. The right likes the legislation because it thinks it will stop abuses of conservatives through the legal system. The problem is, most of the proposed sentencing reforms wouldn’t affect the types of laws that are wrongly used against them, which are usually campaign finance laws, insider dealing, white collar crime, etc. The changes would merely give violent offenders an even bigger break.

A Revolving Door to Tragedy

The reality is that nonviolent offenders are already being released early by overstrapped penal institutions. Remember hearing about troubled actress Lindsay Lohan being discharged from Los Angeles jail repeatedly due to overcrowding after only serving about a day? Yes she could afford a very good lawyer, but her situation wasn’t atypical. The California justice system was quick to point out that they had to treat her just like everyone else they are letting out quickly.

While eliminating mandatory minimums sounds good in theory, all it would do is let worse offenders off the hook. As I’ve written previously, virtually no one is going to prison for any length of time for low-level drug offenses. Currently, a defendant convicted for armed robbery can usually plead down to a lighter crime,  something like drug possession with intent to sell, which starts at five years in prison. Already he is escaping the more serious consequences of armed robbery. But by reducing mandatory minimums, the sentence might be further reduced, even allowing the criminal to avoid any time in prison. I’ve seen sympathetic criminal judges in Maricopa County Superior Court pull every string they can to shield defendants like that from serving any time. This would give such judges one more tool to allow such criminals to walk.

Even detractors admit that the Get Tough on Crime movement of the 1980s and 1990s pushed down violent crime rates. On the other hand, whenever criminal justice “reforms” have been implemented, it usually results in more crime. In New Mexico, the Supreme Court recently ruled that police must give evidence on suspects to the district attorney, and the district attorney must give it to defense attorneys all within 10 days, or the charges are dismissed. Known as the 10-day rule, it doesn’t work practically since police budgets are underfunded, so violent criminals are let out on the streets and more police officers and other citizens are shot.

Paul laments that current sentencing does “little to keep us safe.” However, the average felon is more likely than not to commit another felony within three years of being released from prison. Furthermore, the purpose of incarceration is not just to keep the community safe, but to punish the offender and deter others who may be tempted to commit such a crime in the future.

Getting the Facts, and the Reforms, Right

The Washington Post claims there are 21 times more drug offenders in prison than there were in 1980. But the total prison population has actually been declining since about 2011, and is now the smallest since 2005. The incarceration rate has stayed relatively the same since the late 1990s. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to ascertain the correlating crime rate, because the FBI’s criminal stats site only contains easily discernible stats about convictions, not arrests (notably, there is no graph for arrests). Many of those arrested for robbery and other violent crimes could have easily pled guilty to drug possession, which would make it look like violent crimes were decreasing and drug crimes increasing.

Conservatives concerned about unjust targeting are focusing on the wrong laws and should look at reforming the system instead. One way to fix much of the problem is to switch to the election of judges. It results in more conservatives running for judge and being installed in courtrooms in red and purple states. And if the left really cared about the higher incarceration rate of the poor and minorities, the do-gooders would look into the reasons why, instead of trying to put a band-aid on the problem after it’s too late. Rethinking the misguided strategy of undermining two-parent families with a welfare system that punishes intact families and renders the father economically redundant would be a good place to start.

 

 

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

Inspiration
The Scarcity Mindset
Robert Morris
More from The Stream
Connect with Us