Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
DISCOVER WHY…
MANDATORY MINIMUMS AREN’T
THE SOLUTION TO THE
KATE STEINLE TRAGEDY
OTHER OPTIONS ARE OUT THERE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE EXPERT: Greg Newburn, is the State Project Director for Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM).
“In the midst of a historic swell of bipartisan agreement to reform mandatory minimum drug sentences, downsize an overcrowded federal prison system, and save billions of dollars of finite Justice Department resources for the worst-of-the-worst offenders, it is disconcerting to see new bills in Congress that would single-handedly undermine any improvements achieved by these reforms.
Those bills are the “Kate’s Law” efforts to create new, five-year mandatory minimum prison sentences for noncitizens who illegally reenter the U.S. after being deported. The bills are inspired by the tragic murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a man who had already been incarcerated three times in the U.S. for illegal reentry (apparently, incarceration wasn’t sending the desired message to him: stay out).
Immigration enforcement is a complex and difficult task, and there are apparently many reasons dangerous people slip through the system’s holes. But a new mandatory minimum prison sentence isn’t a good patch. We can’t incarcerate our way out of our immigration problems any more than we’ve been able to incarcerate our way out of our drug problems.
Ironically, the proposed mandatory minimum sentence might make immigration enforcement even harder. The Justice Department prosecutes around 20,000 illegal reentry cases a year; about 75 percent of those cases (15,000) involve a defendant who has been deported following a conviction for a felony. Virtually all of these offenders receive prison sentences, averaging 18 months. If that sounds short, it is due to a “fast-track” procedure prosecutors rely on to process the huge numbers of cases efficiently. Promising shorter sentences gets immigration offenders to plead guilty early and gets them removed from the country sooner.
The proposed mandatory minimum sentence would be a serious threat to “fast-track” programs that aid prosecutor efficiency. If a person will serve five years no matter what, why plead guilty? The increase in trials and lengthier criminal proceedings would slow the wheels of justice considerably and could mean fewer prosecutions overall. According to director Sarah Saldana, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is already prioritizing the most dangerous reentry offenders over those who, for example, lack serious criminal records.”
READ: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/249006-why-mandatory-minimums-arent-the-solution-to-the-kate-steinle
ABOUT: FAMM (Families Against Mandatory Minimums) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization fighting for smart sentencing laws that protect public safety. We see a country where criminal sentencing is individualized, humane, and sufficient to impose fair punishment and protect public safety. Our supporters include taxpayers, families, prisoners, law enforcement, attorneys, judges, criminal justice experts and concerned citizens.
What FAMM Does…
By advocating for sensible state and federal sentencing reform, FAMM helps:
(1) Lessen the burden of overcrowded prisons on taxpayers…
(2) Shift resources from excessive incarceration to law enforcement and other programs proven to reduce crime and recidivism…
(3) Mobilize those whose lives are harmed by unfair prison sentences to work constructively for change…
BIO: Greg Newburn is a graduate of the University of Florida and the University of Florida Levin College of Law. He has been FAMM’s Florida Project Director since October 2010. Prior to joining FAMM, Greg worked at the Cato Institute, and taught high school economics and government.
WEBSITE: famm.org
TWITTER: @FAMMfoundation, @gnewburn