Do Prison Sentences Need to be Reduced for Drug Felons? (S. 1917)

What is S. 1917?

(Updated August 14, 2018)

This bill would reduce prison sentences for non-violent drug offenders, while tightening penalties for violent and career offenders. It would also provide more judicial discretion in the process of sentencing and helping inmates re-enter society.

It would accomplish this by retroactively applying the Fair Sentencing Act to federal prisoners who were already sentenced and serving time when that law was signed in 2010. The Fair Sentencing Act narrowed longstanding disparities in drug sentencing policy. Prior to its passing, you needed to be caught with 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to earn the same mandatory minimum sentence. (Even after that reform, crack is still punished 18 times more harshly.)

This bill would would also reduce several other drug- and firearm-related mandatory minimum sentences, and these changes would retroactively apply to current inmates. Particularly of note, it would lower the current mandatory sentence of life without parole for offenders with three federal drug felonies, to a mandatory minimum of 25 years.

The bill would do a few other things, too, like:

• Expand judges’ ability to use a "safety valve," allowing them to show leniency to some repeat drug offenders. 
• Limit the use of solitary confinement for juvenile offenders. 
• Make it easier for people to seal records of crimes they committed as minors.
• Propose programs that would allow some nonviolent offenders to serve the final portion of their sentences in a reentry center or under home monitoring.
  

Finally the bill would add new mandatory minimums for some very specific non-drug offenses involving interstate domestic violence and aiding terrorism.

Of course, lowering mandatory minimum sentences would not prevent individual judges from continuing to hand out harsh sentences. It is also important to note that this bill only applies to the federal prison system, which houses just over 200,000 inmates, 13 percent of the US prison population.

Argument in favor

No one should spend decades in prison for a non-violent offense. Mandatory minimum sentences (especially when they are as harsh as they are now) take away a judge's ability to rule fairly.

Argument opposed

Although not violent in the traditional sense of the word, drug offenders bring damaging, life-ending substances into our communities. Harsh penalties act as a deterrent for would-be dealers.

Impact

The thousands of federal inmates whose sentences could be shortened; their families; the communities to which they will return; future inmates; federal judges; federal correctional staff; state governments that may be influenced to amend state mandatory minimums.

Cost of S. 1917

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In Depth:  Sponsoring Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) introduced this bill to recalibrate prison sentences for non-violent drug offenders, target violent and career criminals, and save taxpayer dollars:

"Our justice system demands consequences for those who choose to run afoul of the law, and law enforcement works hard to keep our communities safe.  This bipartisan compromise ensures that these consequences fit their crimes by targeting violent and career criminals who prey on the innocent while giving nonviolent offenders with minimal criminal histories a better chance to become productive members of society. This bill strikes the right balance of improving public safety and ensuring fairness in the criminal justice system. It is the product of much thoughtful deliberation, and we will continue to welcome input from stakeholders as we move forward,"

Lead cosponsor Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) added:

"This compromise represents more than five years of work on criminal justice reform. The United States incarcerates more of its citizens than any other country on earth. Mandatory minimum sentences were once seen as a strong deterrent. In reality they have too often been unfair, fiscally irresponsible and a threat to public safety. Given tight budgets and overcrowded prison cells, our country must reform these outdated and ineffective laws that have cost American taxpayers billions of dollars. This bipartisan group is committed to getting this done."

One group that’s unhappy? The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. Its president, Jon Adler, said the bill's predecessor from the last Congress “underestimates the impact of drugs and violence on victims,” and that decreased mandatory minimums would encourage drug dealers to “continue their peddling of death.”

The National Football League, through a letter written by Commissioner Roger Goodell and Seattle Seahawks player Doug Baldwin, endorsed this legislation saying:

"The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act would address many of the issues on which our players have worked to raise awareness of over the last two seasons. This bill seeks to improve public safety, increase rehabilitation, and strengthen families. If enacted, it would be a positive next step in our collective efforts to move our nation forward."

This legislation has the support of 10 cosponsors in the Senate, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats.