04.15.07
Massachusetts Re-Examining Mandatory Minimum Sentences
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is looking to “fundamentally change the philosophy” of the state’s criminal justice system by scrutinizing the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. The proposal is sheathed in concerns over money and public safety, but it also inherently addresses the chances prisoners have to re-integrate into society and the identical treatment of first offenders verses repeat offenders in some cases.
Administration officials say that the mandatory minimum sentences, which eliminate judges’ discretion in certain cases, drive up the cost of corrections and make it less likely that prisoners will participate in programs that could help them reenter society when they are released.
Because those prisoners cannot get out early for good behavior, critics say, they have little incentive to participate in programs while in prison. And they are barred by law from enrolling in work release, rehabilitation, or furlough programs outside their institution, according to Mary Elizabeth Heffernan, an undersecretary for public safety. Once they wrap up their sentence, she added, they are sent back into society unsupervised.
The mandatory minimum that I see most often in my district court practice is the two years attached to selling drugs within 1000 feet of a school or park. In any urban area, this pretty much covers every single square foot of the city. So someone charged with possession with intent to distribute in a city has this additional charge slapped on every time, whereas someone in the suburbs would not. And where do most of the poor live? In cities of course. This translates into prosecutors often having enormous leverage in dealing with these cases, because they will agree to dismiss the school zone charge only if the defendant pleas to the underlying charge. The risk of facing a mandatory minimum if convicted at trial is usually enough to make anyone too scared to fight, even if there’s a good case to make that the drugs were for personal use (and thus straight possession) and not possessed with any intent to distribute.
[Attorney General Martha] Coakley estimates that a third to 40 percent of the state’s prisoners are serving mandatory minimum sentences.
If a judge issues a sentence greater than the minimum, the prisoner becomes eligible for programs once the minimum has been served. But many judges, bristling at their loss of discretion, have responded to the restrictions by imposing only the minimum, prosecutors and judges say, and criminals are freed as soon as their mandatory sentence is up.
Of course, the administration is “talking to the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association to come up with something that would be acceptable to prosecutors,” without any mention of input from the defense bar, but I am optimistic about this re-examination.
But I am wary of the idea of ensuring that every released prisoner have supervision after release - in theory, it sounds fine. But I am not at all confident in the actual ability of the probation and parole departments to help prisoners once they are released. From what I have seen (with a few notable exceptions), they have little to no concern with helping people find sober housing, medical care, employment, education, or family re-integration. Instead, their only concerns seem to be scrutinizing every little misstep so that they can violate everyone based on not being a perfect person. And this is only going to send people back to jail over and over again if it also isn’t fundamentally re-examined.
