How weak prison terms endanger the innocent

Congress should be wary of reducing federal prison sentences. Unfortunately, much of the discussion on sentencing laws has focused on the criminals. What about the victims of their crimes? What about the dangers of putting these offenders back out on the streets where many prey again on law-abiding citizens?

The lives and property of innocent Americans are at stake. Past experience should persuade us not to weaken penalties, which could lead to thousands of dangerous criminals being released into our communities.

An often cited justification for lowering federal mandatory minimum sentences is the size of the prison population. Federal prisoners now comprise 13 percent of the total prison population. But the total prison population actually has declined in the last two years to less than one-half of 1 percent of the United States population, the lowest since 2005. So what’s the pressing need to open cell doors?

The cost of incarceration is another reason why some have argued that changes to prison sentences are needed. No doubt government spending can be cut, but it’s hard to imagine a better use of funds than for protecting public safety and the well-being of Americans.

Others claim that mandatory minimum sentences must be lowered because they result in too many nonviolent offenders being incarcerated for too long — especially for drug crimes. Yet federal minimum sentences are rarely applied to low-level offenders. More than 99 percent of federal inmates incarcerated for drug crimes are traffickers, not simple drug possessors.

Those concerned about jail times should consider the number of prisoners who “plea bargain” and plead guilty to lesser crimes. In these cases, prosecutors and criminals make an arrangement that lowers the severity of the charge in exchange for the offender’s admission of guilt or to avoid a lengthy trial. For example, a drug trafficker caught with a large quantity of narcotics might plead guilty to having a smaller quantity, which could cut his prison sentence in half. So “plea bargains” usually mean the criminal was originally charged with a much more serious crime.

The number of federal convictions that have resulted from plea bargains is estimated to be over 90 percent. If the overwhelming majority of those convicted already have received reduced sentences, why reduce the prison terms further, especially if it means putting criminals back into our communities?

Supporters of lower prison sentences also argue that judges need more discretion. They say that a one-size-fits-all penalty does not allow for consideration of mitigating factors, which might be necessary to determine a fair sentence.

But prior experience with judicial discretion in sentencing counters this claim. It is exactly the problem of too much discretion in the hands of activist judges that fueled the decades-long crime wave that preceded mandatory minimum sentences. Furthermore, judicial discretion led to widespread discrepancies in sentences, even when the circumstances were similar.

The minimum sentencing structure ensures that judges apply a uniform penalty based on the crime, not on the judge’s subjective opinion. Criminals receive equal punishment for equal crimes. And the removal of hardened criminals from our streets for longer periods of time helps make our neighborhoods safer.

A recent Department of Justice study of prisoners released in 30 states found that more than seven out of 10 were subsequently arrested for additional crimes. Most troubling, 29 percent of prisoners were rearrested for violent offenses within five years of release.

In my home state of Texas, new policies sought to reduce incarceration time and focus resources on treatment and post-release supervision. Yet almost one-quarter of inmates released have been rearrested and sent back to prison within three years. Early release programs don’t appear to be working.

Mandatory minimums help keep these individuals behind bars where they belong. That’s one explanation for why crime rates remain down.

The purpose of criminal law is to punish bad behavior, deter criminal acts and protect the American people. Releasing prisoners too soon could condemn many Americans to becoming victims of violence. This can be avoided if prisoners are not released before their sentences have been served.

⦁ Lamar Smith is a Republican member of the House of Representatives from Texas. He is a former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a former chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime.