Testimony
Source: Marc Maur, Executive Director, The Sentencing Project
Recipient: House Judiciary Subcommitee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
Date: 06/26/07
Thank you for the invitation to testify before the Subcommittee today on the issue of mandatory sentencing. I am Marc Mauer, Executive Director of The Sentencing Project, a national non-profit organization engaged in research and advocacy on criminal justice policy issues. I have been engaged in this work for 30 years and am the author of two books and many journal articles on various aspects of current policy.
This hearing is being held in the wake of the mandatory sentences given to two U.S. Border Patrol agents convicted of the shooting and coverup of an alleged drug smuggler fleeing to Mexico. While the circumstances of the case are unusual, they are in many ways illustrative of the problems that have beset the federal courts since the adoption of mandatory penalties in the 1980s. Reasonable people may disagree about the sentences imposed in these particular cases, but they clearly point to the enhanced significance of prosecutorial discretion in the charging decision and the extremely limited ability of the judiciary to engage with the characteristics of the defendants.
My comments today will focus on the experience with the current generation of mandatory sentencing policies in the federal system, the vast majority of which have been applied to drug offenses, and the lessons we should learn from that in order to develop more effective public policy. My remarks will address three main themes:
1) Mandatory sentencing policies have been largely based on false premises, and are particularly unwise in the federal system.
2) Mandatory penalties in the federal system have not proven to achieve their objectives.
3) A variety of policy initiatives could be enacted that would result in more fair and effective sentencing, and would produce better public safety results.
