Post Date: July 18, 2014
According to a new Gallup poll, “four potential Republican presidential candidates stand out above the rest of the possible field.” The standard for “standing out” seems to be that all four are “familiar to more than 60 of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and have net favorable ratings of at least 43-percentage points.” The four potential candidates who meet that standard are former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Texas Governor Rick Perry, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.
Interestingly, all four leading contenders support mandatory minimum reform.
Governor Huckabee has long been critical of harsh mandatory sentences, especially for nonviolent drug offenders. He’s called three strikes laws “nonsense” that have “created a system that is overrun with people,” adding that “the cost is choking us.” And after the Department of Justice announced new guidelines for prosecuting drug offenders, Huckabee tweeted, “Finally found something I can agree with Eric Holder on—sentencing too many people to prison for nonviolent drug crimes.” (You can also listen to a great conversation between Huckabee and Ted Nugent on the topic here.)
Texas Governor Rick Perry has been similarly outspoken on the need for criminal justice and sentencing reforms. At a panel earlier this year at CPAC, Governor Perry criticized “harsh minimum sentencing guidelines” and endorsed alternatives to incarceration for drug offenders. He highlighted Texas’ reforms, and added that Texas is “not a soft on crime state, but I hope we get the reputation of being a smart on crime state.” Perry went further, explaining that conservatives should be leading on criminal justice reform: “You want to talk about real conservative governance? Shut prisons down. Save that money.”
Congressman Paul Ryan has also embraced sentencing reform. Earlier this year, Congressman Ryan visited “some of the poorest communities in America, trying to find out what really works in the fight to achieve equal opportunity.” He was asked to “reflect on a previously held ideological view that had changed over the course of his learning tour.” According to Ron Christie, the author of the piece, “Without hesitation, Ryan delved into the need to reform federal sentencing guidelines.” Ryan said:
I think our sentencing guidelines need to be revisited with an eye towards what actually works to make sure a person can hit their upward potential. Is it better to send someone to a successfully proven drug rehab program so they can knock the habit and get back on their feet again, or is it [better to] put them away for 16 years?
And then added:
I think we had a trend in America for a long time on mandatory minimums where we took away discretion from judges. I think there’s an appreciation that that approach has some collateral damage—that that approach is missing in many ways…I think there is a new appreciation that we need to give judges more discretion in these areas.
Congressman Ryan is currently a co-sponsor of the “Smarter Sentencing Act,” which would significantly reform federal mandatory minimum laws.
Senator Paul is probably the most outspoken critic of mandatory minimum laws. Not only has Senator Paul sponsored the excellent “Justice Safety Valve Act,” which would restore some judicial discretion to all federal crimes that carry mandatory minimums, he’s called mandatory minimums a “major culprit in our unbalanced and often unjust drug laws.” What’s more, Senator Paul has actually called for eliminating mandatory minimums altogether.
In some ways, it is fascinating and remarkable to think that all of the top four GOP presidential contenders have publicly called into question mandatory minimums and endorsed reform or repeal of mandatory minimum laws. Of course, in other ways it’s not so remarkable. I’ve long held that the consistent application of basic conservative principles demands repeal of mandatory minimums, and noteworthy conservatives have been sounding those themes for years.
Conservatives understand that government has certain clearly defined roles. Criminal justice is obviously one such role. At the same time, government needs to be efficient and effective, giving taxpayers the most “bang for their buck.” It is incredibly encouraging to see that many leaders of the Republican party have (finally!) recognized that mandatory minimums are a fool’s errand, and are committed to fixing the problems these laws have created.
(And by the way, are we really still going to pretend there’s a political downside to opposing mandatory minimums?)
~Greg Newburn, FAMM Florida Project Director
I suppose the fight has to start somewhere. I think that mandatory minimum sentencing for nonviolent offender should be remanded, but not just at the Federal Level. We have young black men crowding the jails and being subjected to the same harsh sentences at the state level. Many of these sentences are more racially motivated than decided on the side of justice. My son is one of those young boys, now servicing 13 years for Drug Possession and a Weapon Under Disability Charge after choosing to exercise his Constitutional Rights to a trial. My not so recent contact with your organization led me to believe that I have to start a separate battle for the states problem of racial bias and mandatory minimum sentences solely based on race. In the meantime my son will have had 19 years of his life stolen for him. How can that be, it not the law, “the law”. Federal Or State?
I feel the same way, I have 2 sons serving the mandatory 10 in the state of Maryland. they are bi-racial, I have been fighting these laws for about 7 years. I have been to Washington DC with famm. How ever the federal laws are not helping our loved ones that are doing state time. Keep fighting and keep praying that our state officials will see how they are destroying our young black men and their families. My son has been gone for almost 7 years while his children grow up with out their father. It has been devastating to all of us. I can’t think Famm enough for all the hard work they have put in to changing these laws and making people realize just how much these laws has destroyed so many families, not to mention the money it has cost taxpayers.
I wish there was a way that career offenders can benefit from the all drugs minus two law or any laws passed that will provide a sentence reduction. Especially when they have non-violent drug charges and have already served and completed time under the old unfair guidelines. My husband has 3 years left on his sentence and has served 9 years. In that time, he still has his good time, saved someone’s life at FCI Schuykill and has had good behavior. But there is no option for him to get a sentence reduction. So frustrating. But I am happy and proud of the progress that has been made! Congrats to all the families that will benefit from this law and reunite with their families sooner then later!
The more voices pushing for change the more people will open up and get over the need to incarcerate or start re-sentencing non-violent offenders. The fight at all levels is needed. Begin where you can, do what you can, and just continue to send positivity and love to those incarcerated, see their freedom. It will come, even if they are serving life for a non-violent drug crime.