In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the vast disparity in the way the federal courts punish crack versus powder cocaine offenses. Instead of treating 100 grams of cocaine the same as 1 gram of crack for sentencing purposes, the law cut the ratio to 18 to 1. Initially, the law applied only to future offenders, but, a year later, the United States Sentencing Commission voted to apply it retroactively. Republicans raged, charging that crime would go up and that prisoners would overwhelm the courts with frivolous demands for sentence reductions. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa said the commission was pursuing “a liberal agenda at all costs.”
This week, we began to learn that there are no costs, only benefits. According to a preliminary report released by the commission, more than 7,300 federal prisoners have had their sentences shortened under the law. The average reduction is 29 months, meaning that over all, offenders are serving roughly 16,000 years fewer than they otherwise would have. And since the federal government spends about $30,000 per year to house an inmate, this reduction alone is worth nearly half-a-billion dollars — big money for a Bureau of Prisons with a $7 billion budget. In addition, the commission found no significant difference in recidivism rates between those prisoners who were released early and those who served their full sentences.
Take it away, Senator Grassley. From 2011:
Mr. Chairman, last year, we passed the Fair Sentencing Act. That law reduced sentences for crack cocaine, and directed the Sentencing Commission to establish changes to the Guidelines. The law applied prospectively only.
Now, however, the Sentencing Commission is considering applying its crack cocaine guidelines retroactively. By its own calculations, the sentences of 12,000 inmates would be reduced.
Most of these offenders are violent and likely to reoffend. Although these offenders are now serving time for crack cocaine offenses, the vast majority have been convicted of serious crimes in the past.
In addition to the dangers of releasing violent inmates, retroactive application of the guidelines would impose numerous costs on the Justice Department and the courts.
He’s a fiscal conservative, obviously:
Inmates will file thousands of resentencing petitions. Prosecutors will be required to respond, diverting them from other priorities. Court clerks will spend time managing this additional work. Magistrate judges will review the petitions and will hold at least some hearings to resolve them. Justice Department lawyers will need to prepare for those hearings. The Marshals Service will be required to transport inmates to and from their hearings. Various clerical functions and expenses will need to be incurred if the hearings are favorable to the inmates.
Neither the Department of Justice nor the courts should have to absorb these costs. If scarce resources are to be shifted, from prosecuting crime, to addressing petitions and hearings, the Sentencing Commission should have to pay the costs associated with making its guidelines retroactive. That is what my amendment does.
The Sentencing Commission has decided to pursue a liberal agenda at all costs, disregarding significant opposition to its misguided policies, and disregarding specific Congressional intent. Perhaps my amendment will, for the first time, gain their attention.
If the Sentencing Commission is going to be nothing but a one-way liberal ratchet to apply lower sentences for convicted violent offenders, we should think about abolishing it. Perhaps we should put it out of its misery – and ours.
PeakVT
The prison-industrial complex is almost as pernicious as the military-industrial complex.
We’re number one again, of course.
Roger Moore
Duh. It doesn’t matter that we’re saving money. Fiscal conservatism is about spending money only on conservative priorities- punishing and killing people- and not on liberal priorities- defending, protecting, and supporting them. Billions for prisons, but not one cent for rehabilitation!
JoyfulA
Thanks for the good news, Kay. It’s in such short supply.
David in NY
Grassley has really lost touch with reality. Really. WTF happened to Iowa?
Villago Delenda Est
But the fucking ni*CLANGS* are not being punished enough for their crimes! We can’t have them serving the same time as good white boys who work for Citibank or J.P Morgan!
dmsilev
Of course, Grassley is all about saving money when it comes to eliminating supposedly-superfluous judicial seats at the DC Court of Appeals. Or so he says anyway.
Kay
@David in NY:
He was just really attached to that 1986 law. He couldn’t let it go.
Litlebritdifrnt
I am busting my ass on working on a criminal case right now that could result in the defendant not only getting sentenced to time in NC but could end up him having his parole revoked in MD and him serving a full 40 years for armed robbery when no one was hurt, not a soul. People get less time for murder.
Omnes Omnibus
I think 18:1 is still too high. But progress is good.
Omnes Omnibus
@efgoldman: Iowa has good people too. Just not Grassley or Steve King.
Kay
@Omnes Omnibus:
We go so crazy it takes a long time to undo it. 2006:
Mnemosyne
Here’s the truly stupid thing about the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences: where do these people think crack cocaine comes from? It doesn’t magically appear from the air, it’s cooked down from powder cocaine.
burnspbesq
I’d like to whack Chuck Grassley upside the head with a cast-iron skillet. I feel like I can dimly remember a time when he wasn’t a complete idiot, but that could be my memory playing tricks on me.
Ruckus
@efgoldman:
And they didn’t understand that you can smoke powder cocaine. Or they didn’t care.
Mike G
Shorter Grassley:
Don’t take away my punishment-boner. It’s all I have.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mnemosyne: It is more powerful; the question is how much.
Josie
I suspect that some of our congresspeople and senators and so stupid and lacking in reading and math skills that the research and statistics don’t mean much to them. They stick to their preconceived notions no matter what the numbers say and really believe they are doing the righteous thing. I don’t know what you could do to convince them.
DaveinOz
I love this quote from Nate Cohn’s piece‘
27%. Who could’ve guessed.
Josie
Should be “are so stupid” instead of “and so stupid.” FYWP won’t let me edit.
Mike in NC
I recently read something about how the Death Penalty had recently been reintroduced in NC by the teabaggers in Raleigh. Apparently not quite true: the GOPers knew the law existed but now they want it to be used to kill as many people as possible. Gotta catch up with Texas.
Ruckus
@burnspbesq:
As someone in the early stages of being an old codger myself I still think there should be an upper age limit to nationally elected officials. Or a limit on the number of years that some one can hold that office. I’m not talking one or two terms but I’m also not talking unlimited either. And yes I know they have to be reelected to stay in those 32 years but they affect many people who never get a chance to vote for them or against them. Right now we are being held hostage by how many congress critters? And yes some of the stupidest are young but look who does their bidding to keep their power.
Villago Delenda Est
@Kay:
On the other hand, we know about alcohol use by pregnant women. And examples of brain damaged spawn. See the litter of monsters produced by Barbara Bush, for example.
LongHairedWeirdo
@Omnes Omnibus: Crack isn’t more powerful; what it is, is it’s a high akin to freebasing, without the danger (look up Richard Pryor).
Kay
@Villago Delenda Est:
The CRACK BABIES were going to go WILDING!
We’re just so, so crazy. So panicky.
fuckwit
Racist motherfucker.
Mike in NC
@efgoldman: Texas pussies! Is there a rope shortage in TX, Governor Goodhair?
Josie
@Mike in NC: Please….Don’t give him any ideas.
wenchacha
@efgoldman: The administration of expired phenobarb to the prisoner would qualify as cruel and unusual? Is it a HIPPA thing? I have never sat myself down to watch “Brazil” but I feel sure that this sort of regulatory scrupulousness belongs there.
Also, I read that block quote but kept hearing old plain-speaking Grassley’s braying voice the entire time. Thanks, Kay, fer nuthin’!
Luthe
@Ruckus: I’m in favor of 18-20 year term limits. If a kid born in your district has had you as a Senator/Rep for their whole life, it’s time for a change.
Ruckus
@Luthe:
That’s about the range I was thinking. But to make it a little more equal I’d say something like reps 24 yrs and senator 18. That leaves more chances for a rep to run for the senate if they want to stay in national politics.
Pococurante
Kay, please consider teaming up with Pete Guither of DrugWarRant on drug policy issues. He’s done yeoman work for over a decade now, and his only drawback (IMO) is the occasional firebagger-style circular firing squad. (He particularly has a burr in his saddle over Mark Kleiman’s work with Washington state’s decriminalization effort, lord knows why except over “purity violations”).