|
|
|
|
Repealing Delaware's Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentencing Laws House Bill 71
Judicial and Legal Community Printer-Friendly Issues Brief and List of Endorsing Organizations (Microsoft Word File) |
|||
|
Mandatory
minimum drug sentencing laws require judges to sentence convicted drug
offenders to a predetermined, fixed jail or prison term based solely on
the type and weight of the drug possessed. These laws remove judges’
ability to consider the unique circumstances of each case and to
accurately tailor sentences to individuals. "Because mandatory minimums ignore important distinctions in criminal behavior and because they require prison sentences in many instances where a community-based sanction would be more effective, more conductive to rehabilitation efforts, and cheaper, what they mandated are needless and wasteful expenditures of taxpayers’ money. And, at a time when prisons and jails are bursting at the seams, they have exacerbated prison and jail crowding." - Lynn Branham, The Use of Incarceration in the United States, The American Bar Association, 1992. Consider: · Delaware is among the states with the highest incarceration rates in the United States, which has the highest rate in the world. · Our incarcerated population has soared over the last two decades. In 1981 Delaware housed 1,562 inmates. In 2008, the daily population averages 7,100 inmates. · The last available statistics show that in 2004 Delaware was operating about 160% above capacity. · Our corrections expenditures are among the highest in the nation. One in thirteen of our state budget’s dollars is spent on corrections.
Mandatory minimum drug laws put our state’s renowned judges on “auto-pilot” by sacrificing individually-tailored sentences to a one-size-fits-all scheme. Further, they transfer sentencing authority from an objective, neutral judge who has all the facts of the case, to an adversarial prosecutor, who may not have all the facts, opening the door to injustice. These laws prevent judges from considering any of the mitigating factors outlined in the Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission’s Benchbook (“No Prior Convictions,” “Treatment Need exceeds Need for Punishment,” “Mental Retardation,” etc.). Thus, a person charged with a drug crime carrying a mandatory minimum sentence whose circumstances warrant a lesser sentence will find the judges’ hands tied. Such unfair, excessive sentencing affects not only the defendant, but also his or her children, family and community.
With the repeal of mandatory minimum drug laws, our judges would again be able to fully consider all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of each case. With such discretion, judges will be equipped to identify drug dealers and imprison them; to recognize those in need of drug treatment and treat them; and to handle all offenders as unique individuals and sentence them appropriately. Delaware’s sentencing guidelines and Truth-in-Sentencing Law would remain in force, helping to guide judges in their decisions and ensuring offenders’ completion of their sentences.
By risking inaccurate sentences and the unnecessary incarceration of non-violent offenders, mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws contribute to our state’s already bloated incarcerated population and corrections expenditures. Meanwhile, the Delaware Statistical Analysis Center has reported that: “…there is no evidence that the number of drug crimes or social ills due to illicit drug use have decreased due to Delaware’s mandatory drug trafficking law.” According to the former Department of Correction Commissioner Stan Taylor: “The inmate population continues to grow….we should be mindful of decisions made that could send us down the path of another prison construction program. If we go much further we could reach a tipping point where we would have to build a new facility.” Restoring sentencing discretion to our judges by repealing mandatory minimum drug laws will ensure more accurate sentencing and more efficient and sensible use of our scarce correction resources. This will help to forestall the need for further, costly prison expansion. Indeed, many states are re-evaluating the cost and efficacy of these laws. Nineteen states have rolled back or restructured mandatory minimum sentences and related sentencing policies, especially those targeting non-violent drug offenders. In 2003, Delaware reduced the mandatory sentences for several drug crimes with the passage of House Bill 210. Former Commissioner Taylor has since credited this reform (as well as Senate Bill 50, which reformed the probation system) with having contributed to an unprecedented lull in the annual growth of Delaware’s incarcerated population. As it costs up to $30,000 per year to house an inmate in Delaware, a decrease in the inmate population stands to reap significant savings. Michigan, for example, has repealed many of its mandatory minimum drug laws, and estimates it saved over $40 million in 2003 alone. Pennsylvania passed a bill in October 2004 that provides non-violent drug offenders with monitored treatment instead of incarceration. It is expected to save the state over $20 million. Savings from such a reform could be used to invest in proven alternatives to incarceration. In Delaware and throughout the nation, we are incarcerating individuals addicted and releasing them addicted. Only about half of the estimated 80% of our incarcerated population that needs substance abuse treatment receives it. It is perhaps no surprise, then, that nearly 60% of those leaving our prisons return within five years. Research shows that substance abuse treatment programs, including Delaware’s Key and Crest treatment programs, are proven to reduce the recidivism behind this unsettling, unsafe, and costly cycle of crime.
Mandatory Minimum Drug Laws: Widely Opposed Members of Delaware's Judicial and Legal Community:
At the national level, supporters include:
Click here to view quotes from these and other supporters in the judicial and legal community.
|
|
|||
Home | What's New | Get Involved | The Facts | Media | About | Links