Prison overcrowding is not only a problem at the state level, but at the federal level as well. Decades of "tough on crime" legislation and mandatory minimumsentencing have not served to reduce crime--only to increase the prison population. Often, people are sent to prison for inordinately long spans oftime, even when their earlier release would not cause any significant risk to the general public. For inmates who improve themselves while incarcerated,for those who truly reform, and for those whose crime really did not warrant such a harsh penalty anyway, long sentences are nothing but a waste oftaxpayers' money and a waste of a life that could otherwise be spent as a productive member of society.
A couple of years ago, the United States Attorney General called mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug offenses "draconian." Eric Holder saidthat the federal government would no longer pursue these cases.
But many say that easing mandatory minimum sentences does not go far enough, and they are calling for "second look" legislation that would allow judgesto re-evaluate sentencing that may have been unnecessarily long.
Meghan J. Ryan, of SMU Dedman School of Law, writes in a forthcoming articlefor the Brooklyn Law Review that societal views of what a particular offense "deserves" as penalty evolves over time. With the benefit of hindsight,and the evolution of societal views, initial sentencers or new sentencers may determine that the sentence levied on a particular inmate is improper:
"Perhaps the most revolutionary proposal, though, is one advanced by the drafters of the Model Penal Code, namely that judges be given the power to resentenceoffenders who have been serving long sentences on the ground that societal views about the seriousness of the offenses these individuals committedhave changed. These evolved societal views, the drafters have asserted, might justify reducing the offenders� sentences. The drafters of the Code havesuggested that this position is based in part on retributivism - on what these particular defendants deserve as a result of committing thesecrimes. But an offender�s desert ordinarily does not change as time progresses; it is societal views of desert that change."
One supporter of second look legislation is a judge who has questioned his own sentencing in a particular case, and who, after meeting the defendanthe sentenced several years later, affirmed his belief that the sentence was too long for that particular individual.
In 2006, U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill of Connecticut sentenced a former enforcer for a drug gang to 18 years in prison for a gang-relatedmurder. The sentence, on its own, does not seem to be too excessive for a murder case, unless you look at the specific details of the case.
The defendant left the gang and told police about a drug stash house. He was subsequently arrested and confessed to murder as part of his "duties"with the gang. In addition to his confession, he cooperated with federal agents in their investigation.
Because of the defendant's cooperation, the prosecution filed a motion to allow the judge to deviate from a mandatory life sentence. Still, the judgestruggled with an appropriate sentence:
"[The defendant] had committed horrible crimes, but he also seemed to be making an unusually sincere effort to atone for them. So which man wasI sentencing? The murderer or the remorseful cooperator?"
Judge Underhill ultimately sentenced the man to 18 years in prison, which was longer than the sentence requested by the prosecution. He continued towonder whether he had made the right choice.
Several years later, he visited the defendant in prison, and became convinced that the sentence was wrong. Six years into the 18 year sentence, theman had "been promoted to supervisor at the prison industries factory, had attended classes, and had a girlfriend." The cooperative defendant becamean inmate intent on bettering himself.
Judge Underhill was so convinced that his sentence was unnecessarily long that he contacted the prosecutor and the inmate's defense lawyer to findout how to reduce the sentence--but he was told there was no real way to do that in the absence second look legislation:
"But they told me there was no straightforward way to shorten a federal inmate�s sentence, even if prison officials acknowledge that more jail timeis a waste of time and money. So he had to stay in prison, at an annual cost of $30,000 to taxpayers.�
Certainly, prison is intended to be both a deterrent and a punishment. But leaving people behind bars who have "learned their lesson" does more harmthan good. It deprives society of a productive member who could contribute to the general welfare, and it does so at an enormous financial expense.
They say that hindsight is 20/20. Wouldn't this clear vision be beneficial in administering justice?
