justice safety valve act price

A “safety valve” is an exception to mandatory minimum sentencing laws. A safety valve allows a judge to sentence a person below the mandatory minimum term if certain conditions are met.  Safety valves can be broad or narrow, applying to many or few crimes (e.g., drug crimes only) or types of offenders (e.g., nonviolent offenders). They do not repeal or eliminate mandatory minimum sentences. However, safety valves save taxpayers money because they allow courts to give shorter, more appropriate prison sentences to offenders who pose less of a public safety threat. This saves our scarce taxpayer dollars and prison beds for those who are most deserving of the mandatory minimum term and present the biggest danger to society.

The Problem:Under current federal law, there is only one safety valve, and it applies only to first-time, nonviolent drug offenders whose cases did not involve guns. FAMM was instrumental in the passage of this safety valve, in 1994. Since then, more than 95,000 nonviolent drug offenders have received fairer sentences because of it, saving taxpayers billions. But it is a very narrow exception: in FY 2015, only 13 percent of all drug offenders qualified for the exception.

Mere presence of even a lawfully purchased and registered gun in a person’s home or car is enough to disqualify a nonviolent drug offender from the safety valve,

Even very minor prior infractions (e.g., careless driving) that resulted in no prison time can disqualify an otherwise worthy low-level drug offender from the safety valve, and

The Solution:Create a broader safety valve that applies to all mandatory minimum sentences, and expand the existing drug safety valve to cover more low-level offenders.

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. 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,” said Sen. Leahy.

"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.

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

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.

The bill, named the Justice Safety Valve Act, would expand a current provision in sentencing law, authorizing judges to hand down less harsh sentences if they determine doing so would not jeopardize public safety. Under current law, only certain nonviolent, low-level, first-time drug offenses are subject to sentencing below the federal mandatory minimum.

“As a former prosecutor, I understand that criminals must be held accountable, and that long sentences are sometimes necessary to keep criminals off the street and deter those who would commit violent crimes,” Leahy said in a statement. "Our reliance on mandatory minimums has been a great mistake. I am not convinced it has reduced crime, but I am convinced it has imprisoned people, particularly non-violent offenders, for far longer than is just or beneficial. It is time for us to let judges go back to acting as judges and making decisions based on the individual facts before them. A one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing does not make us safer.”

In an op-ed in The Hill on Wednesday, Julie Stewart, founder and president of the Families Against Mandatory Minimums Foundation, and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, both hailed the Justice Safety Valve Act as a "common sense" measure that would save money and help ensure that the "time fits the crime in every criminal case." Their column offered some data on prison capacity and overcrowding:

According to a recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, the number of inmates under the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) jurisdiction has increased from approximately 25,000 in FY1980 to nearly 219,000 in FY2012. BOP prisons are operating at 38 percent over capacity, endangering the safety of guards and inmates alike. Last week, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice testified that it’s only going to get worse: the BOP projects system-wide crowding to exceed 45 percent over rated capacity through 2018.

"Our justice system’s overreliance on mandatory minimum sentencing is a major reason our prison system incarcerates more people than any other industrialized nation in the world, a disproportionate number of whom are Black and Brown," he said in a statement. "In fact, our overcrowded prisons are almost entirely the result of the mass incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders, who make up nearly half of all federal offenders, not violent criminals."

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), along with Senators Rand Paul (RKY), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) on Tuesday reintroduced the Justice Safety Valve Act, S.1127, in the U.S. Senate, according to a release from Leahy’s office.

The Justice Safety Valve Act would give federal judges the ability to impose sentences below mandatory minimums in appropriate cases based on mitigating factors.

“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.”

“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.”

The Justice Safety Valve Act would apply the current “safety valve” provision to all federal crimes, allowing federal judges to tailor sentences on a case-by-case basis.

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.

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.

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.

Congress’s new bipartisan task force on overcriminalization in the justice system held its first hearing earlier this month. It was a timely meeting: national crime rates are at historic lows, yet the federal prison system is operating at close to 40 percent over capacity.

Representative Karen Bass, a California Democrat, asked a panel of experts about the problem of mandatory minimum sentences, which contribute to prison overcrowding and rising costs. In the 16-year period through fiscal 2011, the annual number of federal inmates increased from 37,091 to 76,216, with mandatory minimum sentences a driving factor. Almost half of them are in for drugs.

Both the Senate and the House are considering a bipartisan bill to allow federal judges more flexibility in sentencing in the 195 federal crimes that carry mandatory minimums. The bill, called the Justice Safety Valve Act, deserves committee hearings and passage soon.

A functioning justice system must work to protect the innocent, while simultaneously holding accountable and rehabilitating those who commit crimes. We must comprehensively overhaul a criminal justice system that, in its current form, is guided by outdated laws and perpetuates structural failures in society. Our judicial system sets up those who have offended and served their sentences to continued failure, even after they have served their time.

As a nation, we incarcerate more of our own citizens than any other country in the world – often times for non-violent drug offenses. Past reforms meant to keep our communities safer have resulted in disproportionately high incarceration rates among people of color, splitting families apart and helping to continue cycles of poverty. Despite the creation of innovative tools at the local level in King County to institute diversionary “safety valve” mental health, drug rehabilitation, and veterans treatment courts, these resources do not currently exist at the federal level. Communities of color still face disproportionate mandatory minimum sentences, with charges often stacking on top of one another. The vast majority of inmates leaving prison face long-term unemployment, with employers often unwilling to consider them due to their records.

As a former prosecutor, I have had a unique exposure to the intricacies of our judicial system. The men and women who work in law enforcement, as prosecutors, public defenders, judges, and corrections officers shoulder the immense duty of keeping our communities safe. These individuals must uphold this responsibility while at the same time assuring that the system remains fair and balanced, and that individuals are treated and judged equally under the law. The time has come to make important adjustments to the way we handle criminal justice in our country.

Overhauling Our Judicial System: Cosponsor of H.R. 2435, the Justice Safety Valve Act –Federal mandatory minimums must be rolled back. These laws have created massive disparities, with communities of color facing dramatically higher rates of incarceration. This bill would allow judges to break from mandatory minimum penalties, assessing lower sentences where appropriate. I have consistently opposed any legislation that imposes new mandatory minimums – this one size fits all approach cannot continue.

Ending Private Prisons and Restoring Fairness to the System: Cosponsor of H.R. 3227, the Justice is Not For Sale Act - As a country, we must end the practice of turning the incarceration of citizens into a business transaction. I am an original cosponsor of the Justice is Not For Sale Act. This legislation, also introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders in the U.S. Senate, would end all private prison contracts at the federal, state, and local level – including immigration detention facilities. H.R. 3227 would also reinstate the federal parole system to allow the US Sentencing Commission to make individualized, risk-based determinations regarding each prisoner.

Ending Racial Profiling: Original Cosponsor of H.R. 1498, the End Racial Profiling Act – legislation prohibiting any law enforcement agent or agency from engaging in racial profiling, and also allows for any individual injured by racial profiling the right to file a lawsuit. H.R. 1498 requires federal law enforcement to develop and maintain policies to eliminate profiling, and require state/local/tribal law enforcement agencies who apply for certain federal grants to develop similar policies.

Ensuring Transparency: Original Cosponsor of H.R. 1870, the Police Training and Independent Review Act –To receive federal law enforcement grants under this bill, states must pass laws requiring the appointment of a special prosecutor to review cases where an officer is a defendant, including officer-involved shootings. It also requires training on racial and ethnic bias at law enforcement academies.

Helping With Reentry: Cosponsor of H.R. 2899, the Second Chance Act -legislation that would reauthorize the Second Chance Act, which continues funding for reentry programs at the state and local levels that have been proven to reduce recidivism, lead to better outcomes for those released from prison, and lower the amount our nation spends on incarceration. We lock up more of our own people than any other country in the world.

Equal Employment Opportunities through Banning the Box: Cosponsor of H.R. 1905, the Fair Chance Act -This “ban the box” legislation prohibits federal agencies and primary federal contractors from asking about an applicant’s criminal history on an initial employment application. This legislation allows applicants who have completed their prison sentences to build a strong foundation for a career.

Leadership at the federal level is critical to ensure wider enactment of restorative justice programs like those spearheaded by Washington State. As we work towards common-sense reforms to our criminal justice system, I greatly value the continuing information, opinions and experiences shared with me by my constituents about these critical topics. We must chart a new course if we are to build a stronger tomorrow.

In order to rebuild and preserve relationships between the judicial and law enforcement systems and the communities, it is crucial that safety and transparency are prioritized. While the vast majority of law enforcement officers in our country operate with the highest degree of professionalism and without bias, the specter of racial profiling has greatly impacted relationships with some communities of color. It is critical that we address the underlying issues that have created such divides.

It is for that reason that I have cosponsored legislation that would establish pilot grant programs through the Department of Justice (DOJ) using existing funding to assist state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies with the costs of purchasing or leasing Body Worn Cameras (BWCs). In the wake of the recent alarming events involving law enforcement across the country, body-worn cameras have emerged as a potentially powerful transparency tool to communities, as well as police officers. The use of cameras is not a perfect solution, and the DOJ must conduct studies on the impact of BWCs on not only reducing excessive use of force by police, but also increasing accountability of officers, the effects of BWCs on both officer safety and public safety, and best practices for data management.

I also support and have cosponsored legislation designed to enforce the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws by changing the policies and procedures underlying the practice of profiling, such as the End Racial Profiling Act. I have consistently supported programs such as the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants (JAG) and Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) programs to improve the support and responsiveness that police agencies can provide to the communities they serve. The Byrne JAG program provides support for many parts of the criminal justice system, including community-based criminal justice initiatives, crime prevention education, hiring patrol officers, and programs such as veterans treatment courts. Byrne JAG also supports anti-human trafficking training for local departments to identify and rescue victims through coordination with federal law enforcement and victims service providers. The COPS Office and its corresponding programs provide invaluable resources and technical assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies. It is essential, now more than ever, that these programs be used to encourage reforms, increase training for law enforcement officers, and create trust through community outreach.

This crisis has had a devastating effect on public health and safety in communities across the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), drug overdose deaths now surpass traffic crashes in the number of deaths caused by injury in the U.S, with an average of 120 drug related deaths per day in 2014. Factors such as drastic increases in the number of prescriptions written and dispensed and greater social acceptability for using medications for different purposes has contributed to the growing epidemic of opioid addictions.

While I ultimately am pleased that Congress has begun to address the serious and growing challenge posed by the abuse of prescription and illicit opioids in this country with the passage of the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act in May 2016, the compromise bill failed to include additional emergency funding to support new programs. It is absolutely essential that we recognize the evidence-based fact that remanding these individuals to jail and prison is structurally, as well as morally, wrong. Funding grant programs and other new initiatives is a critical responsibility of Congress that cannot be ignored. More can and must be done to make this a truly comprehensive approach.

While the limited enforcement direction that the DOJ has taken is a positive step, I remain concerned about possible prosecution of Washington State residents who are acting in accordance with state law. I have contacted DOJ numerous times about this issue, and along with other Members of Congress, asking that the DOJ respect voters acting in accordance with state laws, and not enforce federal marijuana laws on those in compliance. I have also spoken directly with officials in the White House and DOJ expressing my concerns. I am committed to protecting the rights of residents in Washington State, and will continue to look for any avenue to ensure legal clarity when it comes to marijuana use.

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.

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.

Luna, Erik. “Mandatory Minimums.” Reforming Criminal Justice: Punishment, Incarceration, and Release, vol. 4, 2017, pp. 117-133.https://law.asu.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/academy_for_justice/7_Criminal_Justice_Reform_Vol_4_Mandatory-Minimums.pdf

“Mandatory minimum sentences are also unlikely to reduce crime by incapacitation, at least given the overbreadth of such laws and their failure to focus on those most likely to recidivate. Among other things, offenders typically age out of the criminal lifestyle, usually in their 30s, meaning that long mandatory sentences may require the continued incarceration of individuals who would not be engaged in crime. In such cases, the extra years of imprisonment will not incapacitate otherwise active criminals and thus will not result in reduced crime. … Moreover, certain offenses subject to mandatory minimums can draw upon a large supply of potential participants. With drug organizations, for instance, an arrested dealer or courier may be quickly replaced by another, eliminating any crime-reduction benefit. More generally, any incapacitation-based effect from mandatory minimums was likely achieved years ago, due to the diminishing marginal returns of locking more people up in an age of mass incarceration. Based on the foregoing arguments and others, most scholars have rejected crime-control arguments for mandatory sentencing laws. By virtually all measures, there is no reason to believe that mandatory minimums have any meaningful impact on crime rates.”

“The conclusion that increasing already long sentences has no material deterrent effect also has implications for mandatory minimum sentencing. Mandatory minimum sentence statutes have two distinct properties. One is that they typically increase already long sentences, which we have concluded is not an effective deterrent. Second, by mandating incarceration, they also increase the certainty of imprisonment given conviction. Because, as discussed earlier, the certainty of conviction even following commission of a felony is typically small, the effect of mandatory minimum sentencing on certainty of punishment is greatly diminished. Furthermore, as discussed at length by Nagin (2013a, 2013b), all of the evidence on the deterrent effect of certainty of punishment pertains to the deterrent effect of the certainty of apprehension, not to the certainty of postarrest outcomes (including certainty of imprisonment given conviction). Thus, there is no evidence one way or the other on the deterrent effect of the second distinguishing characteristic of mandatory minimum sentencing (Nagin, 2013a, 2013b).”

Tonry, Michael. “Fifty Years of American Sentencing Reform — Nine Lessons.” 7 Dec. 2018, Crime and Justice—A Review of Research. Forthcoming. Available at SSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=3297777

“Mandatory Sentences. Mandatory sentencing laws should be repealed, and no new ones enacted; they produce countless injustices, encourage cynical circumventions, and seldom achieve demonstrable reductions in crime.

“In the 1950s, the American Bar Foundation undertook the most extensive research ever conducted on day-to-day operations of American criminal courts. They learned that prosecutors applied mandatories selectively and that judges and juries refused to convict when penalties seemed too severe. Frank Remington, who directed the project, observed in 1969, ‘Legislative prescription of a high mandatory sentence for certain offenders is likely to result in a reduction in charges at the prosecution stage, or if this is not done, by a refusal of the judge to convict at the adjudication stage. The issue ... thus is not solely whether certain offenders should be dealt with severely, but also how the criminal justice system will accommodate to the legislative charge.’ A large number of sophisticated case processing studies in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s reached the same conclusion.

‘Knowledge about mandatory minimum sentences has changed remarkably little in the past 30 years. Their ostensible primary rationale is deterrence. The overwhelming weight of the evidence, however, shows that they have few if any deterrent effects … Existing knowledge is too fragmentary [and] estimated effects are so small or contingent on particular circumstances as to have no practical relevance for policy making. (Travis, Western, and Redburn 2014, p. 83)’

“Contemporary research thus confirms longstanding cautions against enactment of mandatory sentencing laws. Their use to coerce guilty pleas is new and distinctive to our times. Even innocent defendants are sorely tempted to plead guilty and accept probation or a short prison term rather than risk a mandatory 10- or 20-year sentence. The late Harvard Law School professor William Stuntz observed that ‘outside the plea-bargaining process’ prosecutors’ threats to file charges subject to mandatories ‘would be deemed extortionate’ (2011, p. 260). Federal Court of Appeals judge Gerald Lynch similarly observed that prosecutors’ power to threaten mandatories has enabled them to displace judges from their traditional role: It is ‘the prosecutor who decides what sentence the defendant should be given in exchange for his plea’ (2003, p. 1404). American sentencing has become more severe in recent decades; prosecutors bear much of the responsibility (Johnson 2019).

“Every authoritative law reform organization that has examined American sentencing in the last 50 years has proposed elimination of mandatory minimum sentence laws. These included, in earlier times, the 1967 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, the 1971 National Commission on Reform of Federal Laws, the 1973 National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, the 1979 Model Sentencing and Corrections Act proposed by the Uniform Law Commissioners, and the American Bar Association’s 1994 Sentencing Standards. The American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code—Sentencing offered the same recommendation in 2017 (Reitz and Klingele 2019).”

United States Sentencing Commission. Special Report to Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System. August 1991.https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/mandatory-minimum-penalties/1991_Mand_Min_Report.pdf

Considerable empirical research has shown that racial disparities in sentencing are pervasive: “one of every nine black men between the ages of twenty and thirty-four is behind bars.” In United States v. Booker, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered the mandatory guidelines merely advisory. This study, looking not just at judicial opinions but also at plea agreements, charging decisions, and other factors contributing to sentencing, shows that this racial disparity has actually not increased since more judicial discretion was permitted. Instead, the black-white gap in sentencing “appears to stem largely from prosecutors’ charging choices, especially to charge defendants with ‘mandatory minimum’ offenses.” Removing these minimums as advisory guidelines would help shift toward greater racial equalization in the sentencing arena.

“Despite substantial expenditures on longer prison terms for drug offenders, taxpayers have not realized a strong public safety return. The self-reported use of illegal drugs has increased over the long term as drug prices have fallen and purity has risen. Federal sentencing laws that were designed with serious traffickers in mind have resulted in lengthy imprisonment of offenders who played relatively minor roles. These laws also have failed to reduce recidivism. Nearly a third of the drug offenders who leave federal prison and are placed on community supervision commit new crimes or violate the conditions of their release—a rate that has not changed substantially in decades.”

The Justice Safety Valve Act takes effect Nov. 1. Its author, state Rep. Pam Peterson, R-Tulsa, said she hasn’t heard about any defense attorneys using continuance motions in advance of her bill officially becoming law. House Bill 1518 passed the Legislature this year.

Under its provisions, a judge can bypass mandatory minimum sentencing only if there are substantial and compelling reasons that a minimum sentence would cause injustice.

“We all see the need for this,” Peterson said. “It’s a real bipartisan effort, all kinds of people working together to find workable solutions so we don’t just put away people we’re mad at. We need to make sure those (prison) beds are reserved for people we’re afraid of, and for protection of public safety.”