Judge Regrets Harsh Human Toll Of Mandatory Minimum Sentences
It seems long ago now, but in the 1960s, '70s and '80s, murders and robberies exploded as cocaine and other illegal drugs ravaged American cities.
Then came June 19, 1986, when the overdose of a college athlete sent the nation into shock just days after the NBA draft. Basketball star Len Bias could have been anybody's brother or son.
Congress swiftly responded by passing tough mandatory sentences for drug crimes. Those sentences, still in place, pack federal prisons to this day. More than half of the 219,000 federal prisoners are serving time for drug offenses.
"This was a different time in our history," remembers U.S. District Judge John Gleeson. "Crime rates were way up, there was a lot of violence that was perceived to be associated with crack at the time. People in Congress meant well. I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But it just turns out that policy is wrong. It was wrong at the time."
From his chambers in Brooklyn, a short walk from the soaring bridge, Gleeson has become one of the fiercest critics of mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.
"Mandatory minimums, to some degree, sometimes entirely, take judging out of the mix," he says. "That's a bad thing for our system."
The rail-thin Gleeson made his name as a prosecutor. He's a law-and-order man who had no problem sending mobster John Gotti to prison for life. But those long mandatory sentences in many drug cases weigh on Gleeson.
The judge sprinkles his opinions with personal details about the people the law still forces him to lock up for years. In one case, he points out, the only experience a small-time drug defendant had with violence was as a victim.
"We talk about numbers, but at the end of the process it's not a number that's getting the sentence," Gleeson says. "It's a person, a person with a family from a community."
Bill Otis is another former federal prosecutor with a very different view. "People are in prison because of their own bad choices," he says.
Otis worked for the Drug Enforcement Administration and in the George H.W. Bush White House. He says the 1980s "tough on crime" strategies helped push crime to today's record lows.
"There is a reason that stiff sentencing came about," Otis says. "It was an answer to the crime wave during the '60s and '70s. And the answer has been successful. People are safer now than they were at any time since the baby boomers were in grade school."
That's true — but no one knows whether locking up so many nonviolent drug offenders made the difference, according to New York University law professor Rachel Barkow.
"This wonderful crime drop we're experiencing right now, sadly, criminologists can't tell you exactly why it's happening," says Barkow, who also sits on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the group that sets sentencing guidelines for federal crimes.
To her young law students, Barkow says, she stresses this idea.
"Imagine if I gave you a four-year sentence that would mean your entire college stretch, you would be away in prison," she says. "You'd miss all those birthdays, you'd miss the passing of loved ones, you would miss things that happen in your family's lives that you can't get back."
Then, Barkow says, she asks her students to imagine going to prison for 10 years, or 20, or the rest of their lives — and whether those drug crimes fit that punishment.
At his Virginia home, where an old basset hound named Moe settles near his feet, Otis says he worries more about the victims of crime.
"Crime causes a huge amount of human suffering," Otis says. "It makes people feel insecure where they're walking, in their homes. It makes them feel distrustful and vulnerable. That human suffering counts."
More and more, lawyers and judges and members of Congress are having this very debate. Keeping communities safe — protecting the public — is the main goal. But it costs nearly $7 billion a year to house so many people in federal prison. Lawmakers have introduced bipartisan legislation dialing back some of the penalties. But so far nothing has been passed.
Back in Brooklyn, Judge Gleeson walks into courtroom C6, where he greets the lawyers and asks for jurors to file in for service. Gleeson is overseeing a trial by jury today. But he says that's rare.
In the current system, only 3 percent of federal cases ever go to trial. He says prosecutors can use the threat of mandatory minimums to coerce guilty pleas and long sentences.
"Plea bargains are struck in the United States attorney's office — nobody sees them happen, there's no transparency," Gleeson says. "Transparency in and of itself is a very important value in our system, and we don't have enough of it. The trials are disappearing."
Then, there's the issue of what to do about people already in prison. The Justice Department and the White House have invited thousands of prisoners who committed nonviolent drug crimes to apply for early release or pardons.
That effort is called Clemency Project 2014. But many people, including Barkow, worry that it won't make much of a dent.
"I think at best Clemency Project 2014 is a Band-Aid," she says.
Barkow says the Justice Department — which puts people in prison in the first place — is the wrong agency to consider whether to let them out.
"I mean, no sane government designer would say, 'Well, where should we put clemency? Well, how about we give it to the prosecutors who brought the cases in the first place?' It's crazy," Barkow adds.
Lawyers tell NPR the administration is expected to announce that it will grant clemency to a modest number of nonviolent drug offenders this holiday season.
9(MDE1MTIxMDg0MDE0MDQ3NTY3MzkzMzY1NA001))
Transcript
RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST:
And let's hear now about violence here in the U.S., a time in our history when the murder and violent crime rate was exploding. From the 1960s through the 1980s, the use of cocaine and other illegal drugs spread rapidly through American cities. But it took it an overdose by a star college athlete to send the nation into shock. He died just two days after he was chosen second in the NBA draft. Congress swiftly responded by passing tough, mandatory sentences for drug crimes. Those sentences, still in place, pack federal prisons to this day. Today, NPR's Carrie Johnson has the first in a series about efforts to rethink who needs to be incarcerated for decades.
CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: It was June 19, 1986.
(SOUNDBITE OF NEW REPORTS)
UNIDENTIFIED MAN #1: We interrupt this program for a special report from channel...
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #1: Bias, the Maryland University basketball star, on his way to...
UNIDENTIFIED MAN #2: Twenty-two-year-old Len Bias, star forward from the University of Maryland basketball team and eventually, it was hoped, the Boston Celtics is now dead.
JOHNSON: Basketball star Len Bias could've been anybody's son or neighbor. His death shook people.
JUDGE JOHN GLEESON: This was a different time in our history. Crime rates were way up. There was a lot of violence that was perceived to be associated with crack at the time.
JOHNSON: John Gleeson is a federal judge in New York.
GLEESON: The people in Congress meant well. I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But it just turns out that policy is wrong. It was wrong at the time.
JOHNSON: From his chambers in Brooklyn, a short distance from the soaring bridge, Gleeson has become one of the fiercest critics of mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.
GLEESON: And mandatory minimums to some degree - sometimes entirely - take judging out of the mix. That's a bad thing for our system.
JOHNSON: The rail-thin Gleeson made his name as a prosecutor. He's a law-and-order man who had no problem sending mobster John Gotti to prison for life. But those long mandatory sentences in drug cases weigh on Gleeson. The judge sprinkles his opinions with personal details about the people the law still forces him to lockup for years.
GLEESON: You know, we talk about numbers but at the end of the process it's not a number that's getting sentenced. It's a person, it's a person with a family from a community.
JOHNSON: Bill Otis is another former federal prosecutor with a very different view.
BILL OTIS: People are in prison because of their own bad choices.
JOHNSON: Otis worked for the Drug Enforcement Administration and the George H W Bush White House. He says the 1980s tough on crime strategies helped to push crime to today's record lows.
OTIS: There is a reason that stiff sentencing came about. It was an answer to the crime wave during the '60s and '70s. And the answer has been successful. People are safer now than they were at any time since the baby boomers were in grade school.
JOHNSON: That's true but no one knows whether locking up so many nonviolent drug offenders made the difference.
RACHEL BARKOW: This wonderful crime drop that we're experiencing right now, sadly, criminologists can't tell you exactly why it's happening.
JOHNSON: Rachel Barkow is a law professor at New York University. She also sits on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. That's the group that sets sentencing guidelines for federal crimes. To her young law students, Barkow says, she stresses this idea.
BARKOW: Imagine if I gave you a four-year sentence. That would mean your entire college stretch, you would be away in prison. You'd miss all those birthdays. You'd miss the passing of loved ones. You would miss things that happen in your families' lives that you can't get back.
JOHNSON: Then, Barkow says, she asks her students to imagine going to prison for 10 years or 20 or the rest of their lives and whether these drug crimes we're talking about fit that punishment. Back in his Virginia home, where an old basset hound named Moe settles near his feet, Bill Otis says he worries more about the victims of crime.
OTIS: Crime causes a huge amount of human suffering. It makes people feel insecure where they're walking, in their homes. It makes them feel distrustful and vulnerable. That human suffering counts.
JOHNSON: More and more lawyers and judges and members of Congress are having this very debate. Keeping communities safe, protecting the public is the main goal, but it costs nearly $7 billion a year to house so many people in federal prison. Lawmakers have introduced bipartisan legislation dialing back some of the penalties, but so far nothing has passed. Back in Brooklyn, Judge John Gleeson walks into courtroom C6.
GLEESON: Good morning. We ready? Bring in a jury please.
JOHNSON: Gleeson's overseeing a jury trial today, but he says that's rare. In the current system, only 3 percent of federal cases ever go to trial. Prosecutors can use the threat of mandatory minimums to coerce guilty pleas and long sentences.
GLEESON: Plea bargains are struck in the United States Attorneys office, nobody sees them happen, there's no transparency. Transparency in and of itself is a very important value in our system, and we don't have enough of it. The trials are disappearing.
JOHNSON: Then there is the issue of what to do about people already in prison. The Justice Department and the White House have invited thousands of prisoners who committed nonviolent drug crimes to apply for early release or pardons. That effort is called Clemency Project 2014. But many people worry it won't make much of a dent. Again, Rachel Barkow.
BARKOW: I think, at best, Clemency Project 2014 is a Band-Aid.
JOHNSON: Barkow says the Justice Department, which puts people in prison in the first place, is the wrong agency to consider whether to let them out.
BARKOW: I mean, no sane government designer would say, well, where should we put clemency? Well, how about we give it to the prosecutors who brought the cases in the first place - is crazy.
JOHNSON: Lawyers tell NPR the administration's expected to announce will grant clemency to a modest number of nonviolent drug offenders this holiday season. More than half of the 219,000 federal prisoners are serving time for drug offenses. Carrie Johnson, NPR News. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
300x250 Ad
300x250 Ad