The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill Thursday to grant thousands of federal prisoners a chance at early release, as senators fought to make sure the new bipartisan criminal justice reforms sought by Republicans and Democrats apply retroactively to those already convicted.
Non-violent drug offenders would see their mandatory minimum sentences reduced under the legislation, and would create a “safety valve” so those with longer criminal histories could have their cases reviewed to make sure their punishments fit their actual crimes.
But the bill, known as the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, creates new mandatory minimum sentences for interstate domestic violence crimes.
“This bill is a success because it is a compromise. None of the co-sponsors got everything we wanted,” said Sen. Charles E. Grassley, chairman of the committee and chief sponsor of the bill. “But we reached a broad agreement on certain principles. Because mandatory minimums play an important role in sentencing, we preserve the primary mandatory minimums. But because they can sweep too broadly, we provide more relief from them through the safety valve.”
The bill cleared committee 15-5, with all of the opposition coming from Republicans who were particularly irked that the bill was retroactive, and would free some convicts in the middle of their sentences.
Sen. Ted Cruz said that while he appreciated the effort to ensure fair sentencing laws for low-level drug offenders with no record of violence, he could not support the retroactivity clause because it could allow violent “career criminals” who have committed crimes with firearms to go free.
SEE ALSO: Paul Ryan officially announces House speaker bid
“I think it would be a serious mistake for the Senate to pass legislation providing for 7,082 convicted criminals potentially to be released early, a substantial portion of those criminals will be illegal aliens with criminal convictions. And in light of the growing crime wave, I think it’s a mistake,” the Texas Republican told the committee.
He offered an amendment to make the bill’s eased sentences only apply to future convictions and to prevent the reduced minimum sentencing from applying to violent crimes, but that proposal was defeated.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican and another opponent of the bill, pointed to letters from major law enforcement groups, including the National Sheriffs’ Association, the FBI Agents Association and the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys as proof that the bill was weak on criminals.
Criminal justice reform has become the surprise bipartisan issue of 2015, with Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate writing compromise bills to try to deal with a federal prison population that grew from 24,000 prisoners in 1980 to more than 215,000 by the end of 2013, according to research from the Pew Charitable Trusts*. Drug offenses account for about 50 percent of all prisoners in the system.
States have pioneered criminal justice reform, experimenting with reducing sentences or with in-prison programs designed to reduce the chance that someone returns once they’re released.
Some critics have said the mandatory minimums in place for drug crimes are racist because they end up being used against black people far more often. The most frequently cited example is a disparity between stiffer minimum sentencing for crack cocaine, more frequently associated with black communities, and laxer sentences for powder cocaine, which is generally thought of as a white community drug.
SEE ALSO: Obama vetoes $612 billion defense bill in rebuke to GOP
Senators said their bill will reduce recidivism and ensure that costs to maintain prisons don’t skyrocket.
Running the prison system should be like a business, but “we don’t want it to be a business in terms of repeat customers,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Democrat, said.
The bill has not yet been evaluated by the Congressional Budget Office to calculate exactly how much the federal prison system could save by reducing mandatory minimums.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said he could not support such an amendment to prevent prisoners from seeking changes to their sentences if the laws have changed, because that is the “moral” thing to do. He also said that such a clause would not automatically grant prisoners release if their sentence exceeds the new sentence as defined by the bill.
*This original article misattributed the organization responsible for the research. It has been corrected online.
• Anjali Shastry can be reached at ashastry@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.