In a recent letter
to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Federal Law
Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) opposes any attempt to
“alter or eliminate the current federal sentencing policy regarding
mandatory minimum sentencing.” According to Frank
Terreri, FLEOA’s vice president for legislative affairs, the
current rules are “essential to public safety and that of our
membership,” and ” any change in the mandatory minimum
sentencing standard does a disservice to the brave men and women
who are asked to put their lives on the line to protect us from
terrorists and criminals.” The closest Terreri comes to an
explanation of that position is his claim that “the system in
place… allows progression up the scale of criminal organizations
from low-level subject to higher ranking members through the effect
of the mandatory minimum sentencing act.”
In other words, the threat of draconian sentences pressures
low-level offenders to provide information about people higher up
in their organizations, thereby qualifying for
downward departures from the prescribed penalties or avoiding
charges that carry mandatory minimums. Terreri does not claim that
mandatory minimums are just—only that they are useful. Yet the fact
that prosecutors will certify a sentence as appropriate in the
context of a
plea bargain raises serious questions about whether a much
longer sentence for the very same offense can be appropriate simply
because the defendant decides he wants a trial. And what about a
defendant who has no useful information to offer, perhaps because
his involvement with the targeted organization is minimal? How can
it possibly be just to punish such people more severely than others
who are more involved and therefore can offer the sort of
cooperation that will earn them a shorter sentence?
Barbara
Scrivner, for example, was arrested for helping distribute
methamphetamine in 1992. Prosecutors offered her a 10-year sentence
in exchange for her cooperation. But according to Families Against
Mandatory Minimums, “she knew nothing about the conspiracy
beyond her husband’s participation,” so she opted for a trial. She
was sentenced to 30 years in prison, while other defendants who
played more important roles in the meth operation received
sentences of 10 years or less. This is the system Terreri is
defending.
It gets worse. FLEOA’s objection to any changes in sentencing
rules, based on the dubious premise that current law is perfect in
every respect, means it opposes the Smarter
Sentencing Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee
approved by a 13-to-5 vote in January. Among other things, that
bill would make retroactive the reduced crack cocaine penalties
that a nearly unanimous Congress approved in 2010. That provision
would help thousands of crack offenders who are serving sentences
that nearly everyone now agrees are too long. Yet Terreri says that
step, which basic fairness demands, somehow would reduce the
ability of law enforcement officers to “protect us from terrorists
and criminals.” Even if you accept the equation of nonviolent drug
offenders with predatory criminals, that position makes no sense,
since retroactive application of sentence reductions that have
already been enacted cannot possibly reduce the leverage that the
feds have with people they are busting today.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/OBVyG5
via IFTTT