justice safety valve act of 2013 price

The Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 (H.R. 1695 in the House or S. 619 in the Senate) is a bill in the 113th United States Congress.minimum sentences under certain circumstances.

The bill amends the federal criminal US code of the United States title 18, Part II, Chapter 227, Subchapter A, Section 3553 Imposition of a Sentence. It aimed to authorize a federal court to impose a sentence below a statutory minimum if necessary to avoid violating federal provisions prescribing factors courts must consider in imposing a sentence. It requires the court to give parties notice of its intent to impose a lower sentence and to state in writing the factors requiring such a sentence.

On November 21, 2013, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee convened in a rescheduled Executive Business Meeting. The meeting was to discuss and possibly vote on moving forward with the Justice Safety Valve Act. Other related Acts include the S.1410, "The Smarter Sentencing Act of 2013" (Durbin, Lee, Leahy, Whitehouse) and

S.1675, Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Act of 2013 (Whitehouse, Portman). The Justice Safety Valve Act became one of many new bills to address prison overcrowding and the soaring cost to the American taxpayers. A quorum was not present at the meeting and the Chairman had to postpone discussion and possible vote on the Justice Safety Valve Act. The bills were held over by the Senate Judiciary Committee through the end of 2013 and January 2014. The bills were worked on to merge the language of the Smarter Sentencing Act (H.R. 3382/S. 1410) and the Justice Safety Valve Act (H.R. 1695/S. 619) along with a new bill, S. 1783 the Federal Prison Reform Act of 2013, introduced by John Cornyn (R-TX).

The bill summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress. It reads, "Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 - Amends the federal criminal code to authorize a federal court to impose a sentence below a statutory minimum if necessary to avoid violating federal provisions prescribing factors courts must consider in imposing a sentence. Requires the court to give the parties notice of its intent to impose a lower sentence and to state in writing the factors requiring such a sentence."

113th Congress (2013) (April 24, 2013). "H.R. 1695: Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013". Legislation. GovTrack.us. Retrieved October 26, 2013. Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013

While the Judiciary has been engaged in an aggressive cost containment effort for the last decade, sequestration reduced overall Judiciary funding by nearly $350 million. This has triggered broad cuts in court staff and programs and emphasized the need for continued cost containment within the Judiciary. (Further details appear in a September 10, 2013 letter (pdf) the Judicial Conference sent to the President.)

Today the Conference endorsed a “No Net New” policy under which any increase in square footage within a circuit would need to be offset by an equivalent reduction in square footage within the same fiscal year. This policy takes effect immediately and applies to court space as of the beginning of Fiscal Year 2013. The Conference also voted to impose a three percent space reduction target by the end of FY 2018. The baseline for this policy also is space holdings in each circuit as of the beginning of FY 2013. Excluded from both policies is new courthouse work approved by Congress.

Acting on the recommendation of its Criminal Law Committee, the Conference agreed to seek legislation, such as the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 (S. 619), which is designed to restore judges’ sentencing discretion and avoid the costs associated with mandatory minimum sentences. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the average term of supervised release of an offender subject to a mandatory minimum sentence is 52 months, compared to 35 months for an offender who was not subject to a mandatory minimum. The cost of supervising an offender for one month is approximately $279.

In addition, the Conference agreed to seek legislation that permits the early termination of supervision of inmates who are “compassionately” released from prison. These offenders typically are physically incapacitated, dying or aged to the point that they no longer present a risk of harm to the community.

The Judicial Conference also approved a one-year extension of its cameras-in-the-courtroom pilot project, to run through July 18, 2015. The 14 participating courts staggered their implementation so that only about half the districts will have taken part for three years at the time of the original pilot conclusion date (July 18, 2014). In addition, a one year extension will provide more data for evaluation of the pilot.

The 26-member Judicial Conference is the policy-making body for the federal court system. The Chief Justice serves as its presiding officer. Its members are the chief judges of the 13 courts of appeals, a district judge from each of the 12 geographic circuits, and the chief judge of the Court of International Trade. The Conference meets twice a year to consider administrative and policy issues affecting the court system, and to make recommendations to Congress concerning legislation involving the Judicial Branch.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — FAMM government affairs counsel Molly M. Gill reacted today to news from U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that the Committee will hold a hearing on S. 619, the Justice Safety Valve Act, sponsored by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Chairman Leahy, in September 2013:

“As case after case shows, mandatory minimum sentences are producing absurd results and locking up nonviolent people who aren’t a threat to public safety and cost taxpayers a fortune. Chairman Leahy’s Justice Safety Valve Act would allow judges to use common sense and save tough prison sentences for the people we fear the most. These kinds of cost-cutting reforms are gaining steam all over the United States, and it’s time for Congress to get on that train.”

Ms. Gill pointed to other signs that federal mandatory minimum reform is gaining momentum. On July 17, a group of more than 50 former federal prosecutors and judges released a letter endorsing the Justice Safety Valve Act bipartisan legislation to give federal courts more discretion to depart from a mandatory minimum sentence. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the Justice Safety Valve in the U.S. Senate, and Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Bobby Scott (D-VA) introduced an identical version (H.R. 1695) in the U.S. House. In addition to the former law enforcement officials, the Justice Safety Valve has been endorsed by conservative columnist George Will, former National Rifle Association president David Keene, Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist, the National Association of Evangelicals, and Justice Fellowship, the advocacy arm of Prison Fellowship Ministries. On June 23, The New York Times endorsed the federal safety valve. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Toledo Blade and Lehigh Valley Times also have endorsed the bill.

Proposed in March 2013, the Justice Safety Valve Act would allow federal judges to hand down sentences below current mandatory minimums if: The mandatory minimum sentence would not accomplish the goal that a sentence be sufficient, but not greater than necessary

The factors the judged considered in arriving at the lower sentence are put in writing and must be based on the language is based on the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

This proposed updated safety valve would apply to any federal conviction that has been prescribed a mandatory minimum sentence. As written, it would not apply retroactively; inmates already serving a mandatory minimum sentence would not be allowed to request a lesser sentence or re-sentencing based on the Act. It would only apply to federal sentencing; North Carolina would have to enact its own legislation to change state mandatory minimum sentencing.

In 2012, there were 219,000 inmates being held in federal institutions run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). In 1980, there were only 25,000. Approximately one-quarter of the Justice Department’s budget is spent on corrections. Over 10,000 people received federal mandatory minimum sentences in 2010.

In addition to these statistics, the application of mandatory minimum sentences leads to absurdly long sentences being imposed, at great taxpayer expense, on non-violent individuals. The organization Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) details how mandatory minimums have resulted in substantial – and unfair – punishments for low-level crimes, including these two examples: Weldon Angelos: Mr. Angelos was sentenced to 55 years in prison after making several small drug sales to a government informant. Several weapons were found in his home and the informant reported seeing a weapon in Mr. Angelos’ possession during at least two buys. He was charged with several counts of possessing a gun during a drug trafficking offense, leading to the substantial sentence, despite having no major criminal record, dealing only in small amounts of weed, and never using a weapon during the course of a drug transaction.

John Hise: Mr. Hise was sentenced to 10 years on a drug conspiracy charge. He had sold red phosphorous to a friend who was involved in meth manufacturing. Mr. Hise stopped aiding his friend, but not before authorities had caught on. He was convicted and sentenced to 10 years despite police finding no evidence of red phosphorous in his home during a search. Mr. Hise was ineligible for the current safety valve law because of a possession and DUI offense already on his record.

The use of mandatory minimums that allow little discretion for judges to depart to a lower sentence have contributed to the growing prison population and expense of housing those arbitrarily required to spend years in prison. There is certainly room for improvement. Expanding this safety valve to all mandatory minimum sentences would reduce the long-term prison population while still ensuring that the goals of sentencing are met.

The first question a federal judge must consider in deciding whether or not he or she will sentence a person convicted of a federal offense below the mandatory minimum under the proposed Act is whether the mandatory minimum sentence would over punish that person. In other words, would the mandatory minimum put the person in prison for longer than is necessary to meet the goals of sentencing?

The proposed Act would ensure that the goals of sentencing return to the forefront of determining an appropriate prison term rather than substituting the judgment of Congress for that of the presiding judge during the sentencing phase of the federal criminal process.

There are currently just under 200 mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes on the books, but only federal drug offenses are subject to an existing sentencing safety valve. The actual text of the existing sentencing safety valve can be found at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).

In order for a federal judge to apply the existing safety valve to sentencing for a federal drug crime, he or she must make the following findings: No one was injured during the commission of the drug offense

These criteria are strict and minimize the number of people who could be saved from lengthy, arbitrary prison sentences. The legal possession of a gun during the commission of a drug crime has been used to deny the application of the safety valve as has prior criminal history that included only misdemeanor or petty offenses. In effect, the current safety valve legislation allows only about one-quarter of those sentenced on federal drug offenses to take advantage of the deviation from mandatory minimums each year.

Another exception to mandatory minimum sentencing, substantial assistance, is often unavailable to low-level drug offenders. Often those who are tasked with transporting or selling drugs, or who are considered mules, have little if any information about the actual drug ring itself. These people are then not eligible for a reduced sentence below a mandatory minimum because they have no information to provide prosecutors; they are incapable of providing substantial assistance.

Identical versions of the Act were introduced in the House and Senate, H.R. 1695 and S. 619. Both have been referred to the committee for review. The proposed Safety Valve Act would expand the application of the safety valve beyond drug crimes and would allow judges to ensure that sentencing goals are met while not over-punishing individuals and overcrowding the nation’s prison system.

However, the Safety Valve Act is no substitute for an experienced federal defense lawyer on the side of anyone facing federal charges; it is not a get out of jail card. If a judge deviates below mandatory minimums in sentencing, he or she would still be required to apply the federal sentencing guidelines in determining an appropriate sentence.

This informational article about the proposed Justice Safety Valve Act is provided by the attorneys of Roberts Law Group, PLLC, a criminal defense law firm dedicated to the rights of those accused of a crime throughout North Carolina. To learn more about the firm, please like us on Facebook; follow us on Twitter or Google+ to get the latest updates on safety and criminal defense matters in North Carolina. For a free consultation with a Charlotte defense lawyer from Roberts Law Group, please call contact our law firm online.

In this case, our client was charged with First Degree Murder in connection with a “drive-by” shooting that occurred in Charlotte, NC. The State’s evidence included GPS ankle monitoring data linking our client was at the scene of the crime and evidence that our client confessed to an inmate while in jail. Nonetheless, we convinced a jury to unanimously find our client Not Guilty. He was released from jail the same day.

Our client was charged with First Degree for the shooting death related to alleged breaking and entering. The State’s evidence included a co-defendant alleging that our client was the shooter. After conducting a thorough investigation with the use of a private investigator, we persuaded the State to dismiss entirely the case against our client.

After conducting an investigation and communicating with the prosecutor about the facts and circumstances indicating that our client acted in self-defense, the case was dismissed and deemed a justifiable homicide.

Our client was charged with the First Degree Murder of a young lady by drug overdose. After investigating the decedent’s background and hiring a preeminent expert toxicologist to fight the State’s theory of death, we were able to negotiate this case down from Life in prison to 5 years in prison, with credit for time served.

Our client was charged with First Degree Murder related to a “drug deal gone bad.” After engaging the services of a private investigator and noting issues with the State’s case, we were able to negotiate a plea for our client that avoided a Life sentence and required him to serve only 12 years.

Proposed in March 2013, the Justice Safety Valve Act would allow federal judges to hand down sentences below current mandatory minimums if: The mandatory minimum sentence would not accomplish the goal that a sentence be sufficient, but not greater than necessary

The factors the judged considered in arriving at the lower sentence are put in writing and must be based on the language is based on the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

This proposed updated safety valve would apply to any federal conviction that has been prescribed a mandatory minimum sentence. As written, it would not apply retroactively; inmates already serving a mandatory minimum sentence would not be allowed to request a lesser sentence or re-sentencing based on the Act. It would only apply to federal sentencing; North Carolina would have to enact its own legislation to change state mandatory minimum sentencing.

In 2012, there were 219,000 inmates being held in federal institutions run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). In 1980, there were only 25,000. Approximately one-quarter of the Justice Department’s budget is spent on corrections. Over 10,000 people received federal mandatory minimum sentences in 2010.

In addition to these statistics, the application of mandatory minimum sentences leads to absurdly long sentences being imposed, at great taxpayer expense, on non-violent individuals. The organization Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) details how mandatory minimums have resulted in substantial – and unfair – punishments for low-level crimes, including these two examples: Weldon Angelos: Mr. Angelos was sentenced to 55 years in prison after making several small drug sales to a government informant. Several weapons were found in his home and the informant reported seeing a weapon in Mr. Angelos’ possession during at least two buys. He was charged with several counts of possessing a gun during a drug trafficking offense, leading to the substantial sentence, despite having no major criminal record, dealing only in small amounts of weed, and never using a weapon during the course of a drug transaction.

John Hise: Mr. Hise was sentenced to 10 years on a drug conspiracy charge. He had sold red phosphorous to a friend who was involved in meth manufacturing. Mr. Hise stopped aiding his friend, but not before authorities had caught on. He was convicted and sentenced to 10 years despite police finding no evidence of red phosphorous in his home during a search. Mr. Hise was ineligible for the current safety valve law because of a possession and DUI offense already on his record.

The use of mandatory minimums that allow little discretion for judges to depart to a lower sentence have contributed to the growing prison population and expense of housing those arbitrarily required to spend years in prison. There is certainly room for improvement. Expanding this safety valve to all mandatory minimum sentences would reduce the long-term prison population while still ensuring that the goals of sentencing are met.

The first question a federal judge must consider in deciding whether or not he or she will sentence a person convicted of a federal offense below the mandatory minimum under the proposed Act is whether the mandatory minimum sentence would over punish that person. In other words, would the mandatory minimum put the person in prison for longer than is necessary to meet the goals of sentencing?

The proposed Act would ensure that the goals of sentencing return to the forefront of determining an appropriate prison term rather than substituting the judgment of Congress for that of the presiding judge during the sentencing phase of the federal criminal process.

There are currently just under 200 mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes on the books, but only federal drug offenses are subject to an existing sentencing safety valve. The actual text of the existing sentencing safety valve can be found at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).

In order for a federal judge to apply the existing safety valve to sentencing for a federal drug crime, he or she must make the following findings: No one was injured during the commission of the drug offense

These criteria are strict and minimize the number of people who could be saved from lengthy, arbitrary prison sentences. The legal possession of a gun during the commission of a drug crime has been used to deny the application of the safety valve as has prior criminal history that included only misdemeanor or petty offenses. In effect, the current safety valve legislation allows only about one-quarter of those sentenced on federal drug offenses to take advantage of the deviation from mandatory minimums each year.

Another exception to mandatory minimum sentencing, substantial assistance, is often unavailable to low-level drug offenders. Often those who are tasked with transporting or selling drugs, or who are considered mules, have little if any information about the actual drug ring itself. These people are then not eligible for a reduced sentence below a mandatory minimum because they have no information to provide prosecutors; they are incapable of providing substantial assistance.

Identical versions of the Act were introduced in the House and Senate, H.R. 1695 and S. 619. Both have been referred to the committee for review. The proposed Safety Valve Act would expand the application of the safety valve beyond drug crimes and would allow judges to ensure that sentencing goals are met while not over-punishing individuals and overcrowding the nation’s prison system.

However, the Safety Valve Act is no substitute for an experienced federal defense lawyer on the side of anyone facing federal charges; it is not a get out of jail card. If a judge deviates below mandatory minimums in sentencing, he or she would still be required to apply the federal sentencing guidelines in determining an appropriate sentence.

This informational article about the proposed Justice Safety Valve Act is provided by the attorneys of Roberts Law Group, PLLC, a criminal defense law firm dedicated to the rights of those accused of a crime throughout North Carolina. To learn more about the firm, please like us on Facebook; follow us on Twitter or Google+ to get the latest updates on safety and criminal defense matters in North Carolina. For a free consultation with a Charlotte defense lawyer from Roberts Law Group, please call contact our law firm online.

In this case, our client was charged with First Degree Murder in connection with a “drive-by” shooting that occurred in Charlotte, NC. The State’s evidence included GPS ankle monitoring data linking our client was at the scene of the crime and evidence that our client confessed to an inmate while in jail. Nonetheless, we convinced a jury to unanimously find our client Not Guilty. He was released from jail the same day.

Our client was charged with First Degree for the shooting death related to alleged breaking and entering. The State’s evidence included a co-defendant alleging that our client was the shooter. After conducting a thorough investigation with the use of a private investigator, we persuaded the State to dismiss entirely the case against our client.

After conducting an investigation and communicating with the prosecutor about the facts and circumstances indicating that our client acted in self-defense, the case was dismissed and deemed a justifiable homicide.

Our client was charged with the First Degree Murder of a young lady by drug overdose. After investigating the decedent’s background and hiring a preeminent expert toxicologist to fight the State’s theory of death, we were able to negotiate this case down from Life in prison to 5 years in prison, with credit for time served.

Our client was charged with First Degree Murder related to a “drug deal gone bad.” After engaging the services of a private investigator and noting issues with the State’s case, we were able to negotiate a plea for our client that avoided a Life sentence and required him to serve only 12 years.

On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the undersigned organizations, we urge you to support the Smarter Sentencing Act of 2013 (S. 1410), introduced by Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Mike Lee (R-UT). This bill will address several of the causes for the unsustainable and unnecessary growth in the federal prison population by helping to reduce lengthy sentences for certain people convicted of non-violent drug offenses. Stakeholders from across the political spectrum agree that this critical legislation must be included in any criminal justice reform bill that is marked up by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Expand the existing federal “safety valve”: The safety valve is one of the only means for a judge to sentence below a mandatory minimum in appropriate cases. This bill would make more non-violent drug offenders eligible for the safety valve, thus allowing judges to use more discretion to determine sentences.

Reduce mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses:The bill would lower existing mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses, which would help alleviate the growth of prison costs and overcrowding.

Apply the Fair Sentencing Act to those currently serving sentences for drug offenses:The bill would allow individuals to petition courts for a review of their case based on the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which was enacted in 2010. The FSA reduced the sentencing disparity that existed between crack and powder cocaine offenses. However, some individuals are still serving sentences that Congress has determined to be unjust and racially disparate. In 2007 and 2011, federal courts successfully reviewed some crack cocaine sentences based on changes to the Sentencing Guidelines. This legislation would allow individuals to have their sentence reviewed by courts to determine if they deserve a sentence consistent with current law.

The importance of this modest reform cannot be overstated, as several recent studies have outlined both the human and economic costs of mandatory minimum sentencing. In its 2011 report to Congress, the U.S. Sentencing Commission conducted a review of mandatory minimum sentencing policies in which it found that they disproportionately impact communities of color. The report determined that Hispanic offenders accounted for 38.3 percent of those convicted with a mandatory minimum, Black offenders 31.5 percent, White offenders 27.4 percent, and “other race” offenders 2.7 percent.[1] The study also showed that Black offenders received relief from mandatory minimum sentences least often, compared with White, Hispanic, and Other Race offenders. Finally, it found racial disparities in the percentage of all federal offenders who were subject to a mandatory minimum penalty sentencing, with Black offenders subject to the highest rate of any racial group at 65.1 percent of their cases, followed by Whites at 53.5 percent, Hispanics at 44.3 percent, and Other Races at 41.1 percent.

In addition to the racial disparities, mandatory minimum sentences are the leading contributor to our burgeoning federal prison population and the increased economic costs to our national budget. In 1980, the federal prison population was approximately 25,000 people, but since then it has grown exponentially by a rate of 790 percent. Currently, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has custody of nearly 219,000 people. The agency’s facilities are operating at almost 40 percent over capacity. The President’s FY 2014 budget request for BOP was $6.9 billion, accounting for more than 25 percent of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) entire budget. According to a November 2013 report by the Urban Institute, if enacted, the Smarter Sentencing Act could save taxpayers more than 3 billion over 10 years.[2]These cost savings could free up valuable resources needed to assist key public safety initiatives, such as re-entry and recidivism reduction programs, crime prevention and treatment programs, and other grant programs targeted to vulnerable populations.

Several reports have concluded that mandatory minimum sentences are a major contributor to the growing federal prison population.[3] Research by the Urban Institute also found that increases in expected time served, specifically for drug offenses, contributed to half of the prison population growth between 1998 and 2010.[4] A 2013 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded that the increase in the amount of time people were expected to serve was the result of people receiving longer sentences and being required to serve approximately 85 percent of their sentences after Congress eliminated parole for federal prisoners.[5] The increased time served by drug offenders accounted for almost one-third of the total federal prison population growth between 1998 and 2010.[6] Currently, people convicted of drug offenses make up 50 percent of the BOP population.[7] These statistics illustrate the need to move away from the “tough on crime” laws and focus more on “smart on crime” policies.

The Smarter Sentencing Act is a much needed first step to creating a fairer criminal justice system, while also addressing the serious safety and budgetary problems that exist in BOP. We urge you to support this legislation when the bill is marked up by the Senate Judiciary Committee. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Sakira Cook at [email protected] or (202) 263-2894 or Nancy Zirkin at [email protected] or (202) 263-2880. Thank you for your consideration of this critical legislation.

[1]U.S.S.C. Report to Congress, Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System, October 2011. Retrieved September 17, 2013, available athttp://www.ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Congressional_Testimony_and_Reports/Mandatory_Minimum_Penalties/20111031_RtC_PDF/Executive_Summary.pdf

[2]Nancy LaVigne, Julie Samuels, Samuel Taxy, Urban Institute, Stemming the Tide: Strategies to Reduce the Growth and Cut the Cost of the Federal Prison System,pg. 3-5 (2013). The report concludes that reduction in mandatory minimums would account for $2.5 billion, FSA retroactivity would account for $229 million, and expanded safety valve accounts for $544 million in savings over 10 years.

[3]Nancy LaVigne, Julie Samuels, Urban Institute The Growth & Increasing Cost of the Federal Prison System: Drivers and Potential Solutionspgs.1-2 (2012) (hereinafter LaVigne Urban Institute Report).

[5]Nathan James, Congressional Research Service, The Federal Prison Population Buildup: Overview, Policy Changes, Issues, and Options pg. 8 (January 22, 2013).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) reintroduced the Justice Safety Valve Act, S. 1127, in the U.S. Senate. Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) are reintroducing companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions directed federal prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges and maximum sentences in their cases, returning to stricter enforcement of mandatory minimum sentences. The Justice Safety Valve Act would give federal judges the ability to impose sentences below mandatory minimums in appropriate cases based on mitigating factors.

"When we require that judges sentence offenders to years, sometimes decades, longer than is needed to keep our communities safe, it comes at extraordinary costs," said Sen. Leahy. "An outgrowth of the failed War on Drugs, mandatory sentencing strips critical public safety resources away from law enforcement strategies that actually make our communities safer. It also comes with a human cost, particularly for communities of color, and results in a criminal justice system that is anything but ‘just." Our bipartisan approach offers a simple solution: Let judges judge."

"Attorney General Sessions" directive to all federal prosecutors to charge the most serious offenses, including mandatory minimums, ignores the fact that mandatory minimum sentences have been studied extensively and have been found to distort rational sentencing systems, discriminate against minorities, waste money, and often require a judge to impose sentences that violate common sense," said Rep. Scott. "To add insult to injury, studies have shown that mandatory minimum sentences fail to reduce crime. Our bill will give discretion back to federal judges, so that they can consider all the facts, issues, and circumstances before sentencing."

Mandatory minimums force federal judges to issue indiscriminate punishments, regardless of involvement, criminal history, mental health, addiction, and other mitigating factors.

The Justice Safety Valve Act would apply the current "safety valve" provision to all federal crimes, restoring proportionality, fairness, and rationality to federal sentencing by allowing federal judges to tailor sentences on a case-by-case basis. Such judicial discretion would help reduce the bloated federal prison population and tackle dangerous overcrowding while ensuring sentences fit the circumstances of the crime.

This landmark bipartisan, bicameral legislation would also reduce correctional spending, which currently accounts for almost a third of the Department of Justice"s annual budget. This would allow the Department to focus more on victim services, state and local law enforcement, staffing, investigation, and prosecution.

Earlier this year, we wrote about a proposed bill that could have a significant impact on criminal sentencing in Oklahoma. We were excited about House Bill 1518, because, if passed, it would allow Oklahoma judges discretion in sentencing, even for convictions that carried mandatory minimum sentences. The Justice Safety Valve Act would allow judges to deviate from statutory mandatory minimums under certain conditions where the imposition of the minimum sentence would not be in the best interest of justice.

Critics of the bill say that allowing judges to deviate from minimum sentencing would create too much leniency for convicted criminals, particularly for repeat offenders. However, as Rep. Pam Peterson, the bill"s sponsor pointed out, the law does not require any judge to hand down a lighter sentence. It merely provides the option for judges to take a closer look at the offender, the offense, and whether or not justice would be served by the mandatory minimum.

Oklahoma has some of the toughest drug laws in the nation. Repeat drug offenders--even non-violent offenders--are often subject to long minimum sentences that do nothing to alleviate the source of the drug problem and instead may fuel recidivism. The state has one of the nation"s highest incarceration rates, including the highest incarceration rate for women. In signing HB 1518, Governor Mary Fallin noted the state"s high incarceration rate, saying, ". . . [O]ne in 11 Oklahomans serve time in prison at some point in their lives."

Rather than simply locking away nonviolent offenders based on a statutory formula that does not consider the offender or his or her chance for rehabilitation, a judge may now be able to include in his or her sentencing diversion programs that treat underlying substance abuse or mental health issues.

Not everyone may be excluded from mandatory minimum sentences at a judge"s discretion, however. Judges may not deviate from mandatory minimums under the following circumstances:The person is convicted for an offense involving the use or threat of serious physical force or resulting in serious physical injury to another person.

The Sentencing Reform Act and the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act offered several modifications to federal sentencing laws. Although these bills did not go as far as the Smarter Sentencing Act, introduced by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), they were improvements over the status quo.

One key component of the Sentencing Reform Act, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, and the Smarter Sentencing Act was an expansion of the federal safety valve. The safety valve is an exception to mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders with little to no criminal history. It is a mechanism that allows a sentencing judge to issue a judgment against an eligible offender below a mandatory minimum sentence.

The existing federal safety valve was created in 1994 with the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, also known as the 1994 crime bill. To be eligible for the safety valve, an offender has to meet five criteria defined in the statute.

The Sentencing Reform Act, Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, and the Smarter Sentencing Act proposed an expansion of eligibility for the safety valve by increasing the number of criminal history points an offender may have on his or her record. The safety valve does not prevent an eligible offender from serving time in prison. It does, however, reduce overcrowding and allows the limited number of prison beds to be used for violent criminals.

The safety valve also restores a partial measure of judicial discretion, allowing a judge to sentence below a statutory mandatory minimum, should the judge believe the sentence is too harsh for the offense committed.

There is also a fiscal component to these issues. The average cost of incarcerating a prisoner in the federal prison system hovers just below $30,000 annually. In 2000, the average cost was $21,603. Between FY 2000 and FY 2013, the Bureau of Prisons’ budget grew from $3.668 billion to $6.445 billion. In FY 2017, the agency’s budget was $6.935 billion.

As mandatory spending and interest on the debt held by the public consume greater shares of the federal budget, there will be a crowd out effect on discretionary spending. Congress will need to look for innovative ways to reduce outlays across the board. Enacting reasonable sentencing policies, such as expanding the safety valve, with a proven track record of success would help alleviate the concern.

Since the creation of the federal safety valve, more than 80,000 federal offenders have received fairer, more just sentences. These lesser sentences for nonviolent, low-level drug offenders allow limited prison resources to be used on violent, repeat offenders who are true threats to public safety.

However, in the 16 years following the implementation of the federal safety valve, an analysis from the United States Sentencing Commission reported that the annual number of federal inmates increased from 37,091 to 76,216, with almost half in for drugs, and cited mandatory minimum sentences as a driving factor. In FY 2010, 26.1 percent of drug offenders received relief through the federal safety valve.

States, as is often the case in criminal justice reform, have been the leaders on the expansion of safety valves, and have seen significant crime reduction and monetary savings as a result. Michigan has gone further than simply expanding the safety valve, and actually repealed most of its drug-related mandatory minimums in 2002. In the decade following the repeal, prison admittances fell, billions in tax dollars were saved, and the crime rate fell 27 percent.

More modest changes to mandatory minimum laws have been effective in states such as South Carolina, whose Omnibus Crime Reduction and Sentencing Reform Act in 2010 exempted first convictions of simple drug possession from mandatory minimums. As a result, South Carolina was able to close two minimum-security prisons, save millions of their taxpayers’ dollars, and witness a decrease in crime rates.

Sentencing reform in the past five years in Georgia has been a similar success story, with Gov. Nathan Deal’s Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform’s recommended safety valve being signed into law in 2013. These two states’ more recent reforms to mandatory minimum laws represent states’ continual realization that giving latitude to judges to sentence below mandatory minimums as they see fit, based on the facts of each individual case, is logical, cost-effective, and contributes to public safety. States that also have safety valve provisions in their statutes include Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Montana, New York, Oregon, and Virginia.

The proposed changes to the federal code to expand the safety valve to offenders who have up to three or four criminal history points, with exceptions for some of those points coming from more serious or violent offenses, is a modest, common sense change. Nothing in the safety valve prevents judges from sentencing prisoners at or above the mandatory minimum even if they are eligible for the safety valve, but simply allows judicial discretion to ensure that prison resources are being used where they can best protect public safety, and not wasted on nonviolent, low-level drug offenders.

In the 115th Congress, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has reintroduced the Sentencing Reform and Correction Act and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has reintroduced the Smarter Sentencing Act, both of which include an expansion of the federal safety valve. Although the Sentencing Reform Act has not yet been reintroduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the Prison Reform and Redemption Act, sponsored by Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) would serve as a likely vehicle for sentencing reforms similar to those found in the Sentencing Reform Act.

Should the House Judiciary Committee markup the Prison Reform and Redemption Act, FreedomWorks urges the committee to include an expansion of the federal safety valve that would allow judicial discretion in sentencing qualifying offenders to ensure that lengthy sentences and prison resources are spent on criminals who represent a serious threat to our communities.

Washington, DC (March 20, 2013) – Today, Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013. If enacted, this legislation would restore essential judicial discretion to permit a sentence below harsh and inflexible statutory minimums based upon the court’s assessment of the particular facts and circumstances of the case and the offender. The expanded safety valve would apply to all federal offenders facing mandatory minimum sentences for any crime. Its purpose would be to prevent the kind of unjust and irrational criminal punishments the nation has witnessed under the ever-expanding mandatory minimum sentencing regime of the last few decades.

NACDL President Steven D. Benjamin said: “This measure will restore rational punishment to federal sentencing. It is long overdue. The United States leads the world in imprisonment largely because mandatory minimum sentencing requires judges to impose unjust sentences. While federal prisoners only account for about 10% of the staggering 2.2 million people incarcerated in this country, this measure would go a long way toward restoring the proper sentencing role of the judiciary to America’s criminal justice system. I am pleased that the efforts of NACDL and numerous allied organizations helped pave the way for the introduction of this legislation.”

If adopted, judges will be empowered to depart from federal mandatory minimum sentences where those sentences do not comport with the goals of punishment, as set forth in the law – including public safety, rehabilitation, deterrence, and fairness. Of the currently more than 170 federal mandatory minimum sentences, a narrow safety valve exists only for drug offenses. With some 26% of the Department of Justice 2013 budget request (according to the DOJ’s Inspector General) being consumed by the escalating federal prison budget, which includes an estimated annual cost of about $28,000 for each prisoner housed in the BOP’s overcrowded facilities, this legislation makes good fiscal sense as well.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is the preeminent organization advancing the mission of the criminal defense bar to ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime or wrongdoing. A professional bar association founded in 1958, NACDL"s many thousands of direct members in 28 countries – and 90 state, provincial and local affiliate organizations totaling up to 40,000 attorneys – include private criminal defense lawyers, public defenders, military defense counsel, law professors and judges committed to preserving fairness and promoting a rational and humane criminal legal system.