The safety valve solution to mandatory minimums
As discussed here and officially detailed here, this morning the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing entitled, “Hearing on Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws — The Issues.” As spotlighted here, US District Judge Paul Cassell, speaking on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States, makes a very powerful statement against mandatory minimums.
Unsurprisingly, however, US Attorney Richard Roper’s written testimony argues in support of mandatory minimum sentencing laws and asserts that they are “critical tools for combating certain serious crimes.” Interestingly, though, Roper’s testimony expresses support for the federal safety valve provisions, which he says “has been successful at preventing the mandatory minimum drug provisions from sweeping too broadly.”
I concur that the statutory safety valve has helped ameliorate some of the worst excesses of some mandatory minimum sentencing provisions. However, Judge Cassell’s testimony documents that the safety valve does not help in all cases (principally because of some rigid limitations in the reach of the safety valve). I have long thought that, if Congress lacks the political will to eliminate all broad mandatory minimum sentencing provisions, it ought to at least expand the applicability of the safety valve to all first offenders and perhaps to all other nonviolent offenders. After all, as Roper’s testimony highlights, prosecutors view mandatory minimums as most important and perhaps only justified when directed at “major drug traffickers, gang violence, predators, and those who use firearms to further violent or drug-trafficking criminal activity.”
Some recent related posts: