Previewing the (quite unpredictable) new federal politics of crack sentencing
As I mentioned in this post, the usual federal politics of crime and punishment are all mixed up these days. Consequently, political reactions to the US Sentencing Commission’s new crack work (basics here) are not easy to predict.
Just a few years ago, “tough on crime” federal politics produced the ugly Feeney Amendment in 2003, and few politicians would dare publicly support any measure to lower any federal sentences. But a whole lot has changed in only four years. President Bush has championed America as a “land of second chance,” the Justice Department is no longer viewed as a paragon of virtue, both houses of Congress are now controlled by Democrats, and many leading Republicans (including presidential candidates Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee) have vocally endorsed a kinder, gentler criminal justice system.
So what does all this mean for the US Sentencing Commission’s new crack guidelines and the USSC’s forthcoming report (which will urge further reforms)? To begin, the new politics in part it explans why the USSC is finally moving forward on these issues: the USSC insiders surely know that new crack guidelines and suggestions for other reforms will get a warmer reception now than perhaps at any other time in the last decade.
But exactly how warm will that reception be? Is there a real chance that Congress will reform the crack mandatory minimums int he months ahead? Might there even be a broader movement to eliminate all federal mandatory minimums? Or will “tough on crime” rhetoric take center stage again? Will any presidential candidates appreciate that the enfranchisement of felons in swing-state Florida could make these issues very important in the 2008 campaign? Only time will tell.
Some related posts on modern sentencing politics: