Reforming America’s Justice System
February 8, 2011 No CommentsBy: John Foshee
Class of 2011
College of Arts and Science
In 21st century America, there are few institutions more unjust or unnecessarily harsh than the American Justice System. It is counter-productive to the best interests of society and I am advocating for most mandatory minimum prison sentences to be repealed and statutes to be cleaned up. America’s laws and codes are so archaic and complex that many times, people don’t even know that they are breaking the law. In other instances, citizens are imprisoned for a significant amount of time when their transgressions do not call for it but the judge is hand-tied by mandatory minimums. According to Alex Kozinski, an appeals-court judge, “You’re (probably) a federal criminal.”
According to the International Centre for Prison Studies, justice in America is harsher than in any other rich country. Between 2.3 and 2.4 million Americans are behind bars which is roughly 1 in 100 adults. If those on parole are included, one adult in 31 is under “correctional supervision.” As a proportion of population, America incarcerates five times more people than Britain, nine times more than Germany, and 12 times more than Japan. A major contributor to this state of affairs is America’s complex system of laws.
In 2000, four Americans were charged with importing lobster tails in plastic bags instead of cardboard boxes, which is a violation of a Honduran regulation that Honduras no longer enforces. This was a violation of the Lacey Act, which stipulates that Americans can’t break foreign rules while hunting or fishing. It was initially enacted to prevent poaching of rare animals but has been expounded to include regulations about all animals. The end result was that three of the men got eight years in jail a piece. In California, there is a three strikes and you’re out rule after which mandatory minimum sentences kick in. Recently, a man named Jerry Williams was convicted of stealing a slice of pizza from a group of children in Redondo Beach, California. Petty theft is usually a misdemeanor but under the three strikes and you’re out rule, it was classified as a felony which mandated an automatic sentence of 25 years to life. His attorney pointed out that he would be facing the same automatic sentence whether he’d raped a woman, molested a child, or committed armed robbery because the statute doesn’t make distinctions between offenses. The judge said, at the sentencing, “I don’t think this is fair. It’s going to cost upwards of $50,000 a year to have you in state prison. Had I the authority, I would send you to jail for no more than one year and a treatment program after that.” In a world where we are supposed to trust our justice system to make the correct choice, we have allowed politicians from both sides to rob judges of their power and thus corrupt the American Justice System.
This trend towards harsher punishments began in the 1970’s, as violent crime and drug arrests began increasing rapidly. Because of this trend, rising crime became a political issue that was campaigned upon and sparked a cyclical process of ever-toughening laws. Republican lawmakers who needed to sound “tough on crime,” must propose tougher laws than already in place. The next guy who comes in has to propose even tougher laws than the last guy in order to keep the appearance of being “tough on crime.” When the crime rate falls, it is often hailed as the product of tougher sentences when many times it is the result of demographic or other local changes. Three strikes laws, originally designed to put away violent criminals for life, have been applied to a large swathe of lesser offenses.
According to the Heritage Foundation and the Economist, Democrats have also contributed to the problem. Contrary to popular belief, most white collar criminals do not get off lightly. They may be able to afford better lawyers, but the advantages almost always lie in the hands of federal prosecutor. For example, a prosecutor can count every individual email sent by a white collar criminal relating to his criminal activity as a separate instance of wire fraud, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. Decades upon decades can add up quickly. These new tools that have been afforded to prosecutors have corrupted the justice system. When people are faced with absurd penalties like 800 years in prison, the incentive to cooperate, which really means anything helpful for the prosecution, is enormous. Innocent defendants may plead guilty in return for shorter sentencing to avoid the risk of being convicted for a much longer one. A prosecutor can credibly threaten a middle aged man that he will die in a prison cell if he doesn’t cooperate. This is problematic because of its implications. A defense lawyer is not allowed to offer a witness money to testify that his client is innocent, to do so would be bribery. However a prosecutor can threaten something of much greater value, an individual’s freedom to get a witness to say what he wants.
In addition to wrongfully imprisoning people for petty sentences and corrupting the justice system, the sheer cost of imprisonment alone should necessitate reform. Jail spending is almost $50,000 per prisoner per year in California, where spending per pupil is only a seventh of that. According to the Pew Center on the States, we are “way passed the point of diminishing returns.” Prisons are overcrowded; facilities designed to hold 5000 are being asked to hold 9000. Something must be done.
There are numerous alternatives to the present approach. In the Netherlands, which has increased its use of non-custodial sentences, the prison population and crime rate have both been falling. This allows for lawful offenders to stay out in the community, still with consequences, but also with the ability to find work and become productive. Some parts of the United States have even been going against the national trend. The state of New York cuts its incarceration rate by 15% between 1997 and 2007, while also reducing violent crime 40% during the same time according to the Pew Center.
Many supporters of mandatory sentencing say that they are necessary to equalize sentencing disparities. They point to the pre-1980’s time when sentencing was arbitrary and usually up to the total discretion of the judge. I don’t advocate going back to the pre-1980’s system, but merely instituting sentencing guidelines for judges. Any judge that wanders out of the sentencing guidelines will have the decision reviewed and if the exception was warranted then it would be allowed. Mandatory minimums do not allow for such room. Additionally I would propose that mandatory minimums remain in place for especially heinous crimes like forcible rape and murder. Society has no place for crimes such as these and the streets will undoubtedly be safer with them off of the streets. My proposal would target nonsensical laws like three strikes and you’re out for petty crime and the abuse of deals that prosecutors make in exchange for testimony. The American Justice System is convoluted and needs a large dose of reform. The current state of affairs is unfair and unacceptable.
Featured, Online Exclusive