Speaker 1: Attorney General Jeff Sessions has rolled back criminal justice sentencing
Speaker 1: reforms put in place by the Obama administration, paving the
Speaker 1: way to bring back the War on drugs. In a
Speaker 1: sentencing memo to federal prosecutors, he instructed them to charge
Speaker 1: defendants with the most serious offense is possible, most likely
Speaker 1: to trigger severe mandatory minimum sentences. It means that we're
Speaker 1: going to meet our responsibility to enforce the law with
Speaker 1: judgment and fairness. It is simply the right and moral
Speaker 1: thing to do. The Session sentencing memo is similar to
Speaker 1: the Ashcroft sentencing memo. Under President George W. Bush, the
Speaker 1: Obama administration had put in place policies reducing harsh prison
Speaker 1: sentences for non violent, low level in first time drug offenders,
Speaker 1: leading to the first decline in the federal prison population
Speaker 1: in forty years. Joining us are sentencing experts Aimes Grauert,
Speaker 1: counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, and Heather McDonald
Speaker 1: fell at the Manhattan Institute. Ames Session has prom missed
Speaker 1: law and order agenda since he came to office. He
Speaker 1: says tough new sentencing policies are necessary to combat what
Speaker 1: he described as a surge of violent crime in cities.
Speaker 1: Is there any evidence that strict sentencing accomplishes that? Hi, First,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for having me. And second, no, I
Speaker 1: don't think there's any evidence that rolling back to these
Speaker 1: ashcraft air policies will help kind into crime at all.
Speaker 1: If you look at an analysis, um that, if you
Speaker 1: look at analysis from people like the Brennan Center and
Speaker 1: that former Attorney General air Colder himself has put out, UH,
Speaker 1: there's no sign that cooperation rates for guilty please dropped.
Speaker 1: There's no sign that the number of prosecutions of relatively
Speaker 1: high level drug crimes dropped at all thanks to these
Speaker 1: thanks to his charging policies, I don't think we'll see
Speaker 1: any safety benefits, but we might see a return to
Speaker 1: the same over incarceration trend that we've been dealing with
Speaker 1: for decades. Heather, let me ask you the same question,
Speaker 1: would is there a justification for this this changed by
Speaker 1: the Attorney General. Well, for one thing, it's following the law.
Speaker 1: The Congress and the Sentencing Commission mandated a certain penalty
Speaker 1: for possession of drugs with intent to distribute UH, and
Speaker 1: the Holder Memo had instructed prosecutors to conceal the actual
Speaker 1: amount that a defendant trafficker was caught with from the
Speaker 1: judge so as not to trigger the mandatory minimum possibility,
Speaker 1: something that is used by prosecutors in order to plea
Speaker 1: bargain down a sentence in exchange for cooperation in naming
Speaker 1: people higher up in a drug drug trafficking organization. So
Speaker 1: this change simply restores uh congressional intent. If if Congress
Speaker 1: believes that the mandatory minimum penalties are too severe, it
Speaker 1: should be up to Congress to change those, not not
Speaker 1: prosecutors concealing the actual drug amounts that traffickers are caught with.
Speaker 1: Aims describe what the holder memo did in your opinion, sure,
Speaker 1: and I just want to push back on the notion
Speaker 1: that this is somehow violating the law. Sessions clearly believe
Speaker 1: the same thing. He said Zona four speech in Congress
Speaker 1: a couple of years ago. But there's a there's a
Speaker 1: broader interplay between the sentencing law that Congress passes and
Speaker 1: the sentencing outcomes that defendant receipt. And that interplay involves
Speaker 1: another key actor, and that's prosecutors. I was a prosecutor
Speaker 1: for four years at the state level. UM, we made
Speaker 1: broad use of our prosecutorial discretion to make sure that
Speaker 1: the punishments at the crime. Uh, there's there's no law
Speaker 1: that says prosecutors shouldn't do the exact same thing at
Speaker 1: the federal level. Well, this was this preserves discretion. It
Speaker 1: allows prosecutors to, uh, to not charge for the mandatory minimum.
Speaker 1: It's the facts warranted. But the Holder memo basically instructed
Speaker 1: prosecutors to conceal from the judge. And I would say
Speaker 1: that the whole conceit of nonviolent drug traffickers, I think
Speaker 1: is is fallacious. Uh. This February, eleven year old Tequilla
Speaker 1: Holmes in Chicago was shot dead in the head with
Speaker 1: a bullet to the head by a nineteen year old
Speaker 1: marijuana dealer. James Comey, UH as FBI director, gave an
Speaker 1: extraordinarily powerful speech in October at the University of Chicago
Speaker 1: where he described a drug operation in in Arkansas that
Speaker 1: was greeted by cheers and officers, officers of food, offers
Speaker 1: of food, and hugs by the predominantly black residents who
Speaker 1: realized that they were no longer now going to be
Speaker 1: living under the threat and Paul of violence Aimes. Let's
Speaker 1: go for a moment with about thirty seconds about into
Speaker 1: the discretion idea, because Jeff Session says there's discretion, but
Speaker 1: the prosecutors have to get recommendations of from outside the glands.
Speaker 1: They have to go to supervisory approval and a documented explanation.
Speaker 1: It's not just on their own. That's exactly right, And
Speaker 1: it was the same thing under the Holder Memo that
Speaker 1: the Holder Memo didn't say, prosecutors, you can charge withever
Speaker 1: the whatever you want, regardless of approval. It set forth
Speaker 1: a narrow, narrow number of criteria that had to be
Speaker 1: satisfied before they reduce a charge and the type of
Speaker 1: violent crime them. If McDonald's just talking about it wouldn't
Speaker 1: have qualified for a Holder era departure from the guidelines.
Speaker 1: Now you're right, Uh, Any departure from the maximum sentence
Speaker 1: that Congress authorizes in any case has to be cleared
Speaker 1: with either main Justice or u S Attorney. Since we
Speaker 1: haven't don't have any HISSE attorneys confirmed by the Senate yet,
Speaker 1: query how exactly that discretion will be used. We've been
Speaker 1: talking about Attorney General Jeff's Sessions rolling back criminal justice
Speaker 1: sentencing reforms and a sentencing memo to federal prosecutors instructing
Speaker 1: them to charge defendants with the most serious offense is
Speaker 1: possible most likely to trigger severe mandatory minimum sentences. And
Speaker 1: our guests are Heather McDonald, she's a fellow at the
Speaker 1: Manhattan Institute, and Ames Groward, he is a counsel at
Speaker 1: the Brennan Center for Justice. Aims there was an effort,
Speaker 1: a bipartisan effort in Congress a few years ago to
Speaker 1: change the sentencing laws, the bipartisan Criminal Justice legislation, And
Speaker 1: there are some civil rights advocates, sentencing advocates, some Republicans
Speaker 1: in Congress who have been pursuing these sentencing reform measures,
Speaker 1: who have been critical of Session sentencing. For example, Republican
Speaker 1: Senator Mike Lee tweeted, to be tough on crime, we
Speaker 1: have to be smart on crime. Tell us about the
Speaker 1: bipartisan criminal justice legislation and what happened with it. I'm
Speaker 1: happy too. It's it's actually, it's one of the most
Speaker 1: heartening things I've seen in DC in a while. I think, uh,
Speaker 1: you you would, you would think. And there was some
Speaker 1: fear that this bipartisan amentum we had going into the
Speaker 1: election would have evaporated during a badly controversial, continuing political season.
Speaker 1: But on the other hand, exactly like you said, we've
Speaker 1: heard a lot of support from Mike Lee Rand Paul
Speaker 1: who spoke to to criticize Attorney General Sessions. Um move
Speaker 1: uh and and that's a great sign. I'm hoping that
Speaker 1: we can get the same amentum going that we had
Speaker 1: last time. Uh. That was the sentenc Perform and Correction deck.
Speaker 1: As the bill you're describing, it was sponsored by Senators
Speaker 1: grass Lee and Durban and had a broad range of
Speaker 1: bipartisan support. One of the very few Republican critics was
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions, who just happens to now be the Attorney General.
Speaker 1: How there isn't Jeff Sessions sort of an outlier on
Speaker 1: this issue? You know? There there was, indeed, as June
Speaker 1: just said, this bipartisan movement. Um. You know. Mike Lee,
Speaker 1: after after the Mr. Sessions is announcement, wrote on Twitter
Speaker 1: to be tough on crime, we have to be smart
Speaker 1: on crime. Isn't he going against the green of what?
Speaker 1: You know? It seems to be a consensus of everybody
Speaker 1: else thinks. Well, that never did come to a vote.
Speaker 1: And I'm not sure that, say, the Koch Brothers necessarily
Speaker 1: represents a or Ran Paul represents a consensus on attitudes
Speaker 1: towards criminal justice system in policing UH. You know, I
Speaker 1: think the most important voices to listen to are those
Speaker 1: in inner cities, people living with the threat of drug violence.
Speaker 1: I've never been to a police community meeting in the
Speaker 1: inner city where I do not hear people ask the police,
Speaker 1: you get the dealer, you arrest the dealers, They're back
Speaker 1: on the corner the next day. Why can't you keep
Speaker 1: them off the streets? Prison remains a lifetime achievement award
Speaker 1: for persistence in criminal offending, and people that UH are
Speaker 1: living with drug violence understand that it is a extraordinary
Speaker 1: UH crime on their freedoms and on economic activity. We
Speaker 1: hear about the alleged costs of incarceration. They're about forty
Speaker 1: three billion dollars when you take into account actual spending
Speaker 1: on institutions as opposed to probation and training. That's a
Speaker 1: drop in the bucket compared to what it costs communities
Speaker 1: to live with with unimpeded crime and trafficking. Americans spend
Speaker 1: seven point four billion on Halloween alone, forty three billion
Speaker 1: dollars to get the most serious offenders off the streets.
Speaker 1: For a good period of time is frankly a bargain
Speaker 1: compared to the costs of letting them stay on the streets,
Speaker 1: so aims of the former Attorney General, Eric Holder called
Speaker 1: the move unwise and ill informed, and he said that
Speaker 1: sessions directive puts the country in danger of repeating an
Speaker 1: all mistake spending one third of its budget on incarcerating
Speaker 1: people rather than for ending, detecting or investigating crime. What
Speaker 1: about the numbers for incarceration. Do you agree with what
Speaker 1: Heather said? Well, I think if you're going to do
Speaker 1: a formal, full cost benefit study of the criminal justice system,
Speaker 1: the forty three billion would be just a drop in
Speaker 1: the bucket. But it also would be just the very
Speaker 1: beginning of that analysis. You can say it costs, however
Speaker 1: much to incarceory people, but that's not taking into account
Speaker 1: the amount of diminished productivity, uh, the amount of the
Speaker 1: problems with wage growth and finding a job that people
Speaker 1: say after they return from prison. Uh. And of course
Speaker 1: those effects apply to everyone who goes to prison, not
Speaker 1: just someone who uh people might say deserve to be
Speaker 1: there for committing a serious drug crime. That would apply
Speaker 1: to even someone who commits a very minor federal offense,
Speaker 1: which is possessing marijuana, which is still a federal crime. Uh.
Speaker 1: Those same people have to go back reintegrate into their communities,
Speaker 1: and we should probably count the economic problems they face,
Speaker 1: the hurdles they'll face in their professional life in the
Speaker 1: future as part of the full cost benefits study. I
Speaker 1: think when you finally finish that, which would be a
Speaker 1: really hard task to do to telly up all the
Speaker 1: individual costs and benefits, I think you'd come to the
Speaker 1: conclusion that our current high level of incarceration is not
Speaker 1: costpenct that justified, and that we could find better ways
Speaker 1: to spend that money. At one one point where I
Speaker 1: think miss McDonald and I agree, uh, is that the
Speaker 1: more police officers you have on the street, the better.
Speaker 1: There's that there's really good evidence for that just be
Speaker 1: It's important to note that those police officers should be
Speaker 1: engaging actively with their community, is not necessarily going after
Speaker 1: every single petty offense that they cannet. We are going
Speaker 1: to be talking about this for quite some time. I
Speaker 1: believe I want to thank you both for your insights.
Speaker 1: That's Ames grow Worth. He's a counsel at the Brennan
Speaker 1: Center for Justice and a former prosecutor, and Heather McDonald.
Speaker 1: She's a fellow at the Manhattan Institute