When it comes to criminal justice reform, good news apparently comes in threes.
On Thursday, Barack Obama became the first president in American history to visit a federal prison. He used the opportunity to say, “These are young people who made mistakes that aren’t that different than the mistakes that I made.” Later the same day, Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, declared that too many people have been incarcerated for “flimsy reasons.” And the day before, Bill Clinton admitted that while president, it was a mistake for him to sign a bill that has greatly contributed to America’s ever-growing prison population.
These three leaders, opponents on so many other issues, are now allies on the issue of criminal justice reform. And they have breathed new life into the bipartisan consensus for improving America’s sentencing and corrections system.
It’s hard to disagree that reform is desperately needed. The statistics speak for themselves. America houses 25 percent of the world’s prisoners but only 5 percent of the world’s population.
RELATED: Revamping the nation’s criminal justice system is Obama’s next mission
Over the last 35 years, the number of people in federal prison grew by nearly 800 percent, from 24,000 to 215,000 inmates. State prisoners bring this number up to a staggering 1.6 million. Estimates put the number of people with some form of criminal or arrest record at more than 70 million, or almost 1 in 3 American adults, and they are overwhelmingly poor and minorities.
And the criminal justice system’s fiscal burden is real and unsustainable: Prisons cost taxpayers $80 billion annually. Federal prisons now consume 30 percent of the Justice Department’s budget, crowding out funding for law enforcement and victim services.
It goes without saying that many of those in prison deserve to be there. Serious criminals who endanger our lives and threaten public safety should be — and are — hit with stiff punishment. Yet so are first-time, nonviolent, and low-level offenders. Mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses created in the 1980s were well-intentioned, but their severity too often leads to punishments that in no way fit the crime.
RELATED: Obama finds his voice on criminal justice reform
Shirley Schmitt is serving 10 years in prison for a crime that never involved an actual sale of drugs — she and several friends who were addicts pooled their resources to buy pseudophedrine and turn it into methamphetamine, the drug they craved. Weldon Angelos sold less than $1,000 of marijuana and possessed a firearm. Despite no use of the gun or injury to others, federal judge Paul Cassell was forced to give a 55-year sentence, an “unjust, cruel, and irrational” punishment he said would have been lower had Mr. Angelos committed a crime like airplane highjacking, kidnapping or rape. In these and so many other cases, mandatory minimum sentences tie judges’ hands, defy common sense and cost a fortune.
The consequences of lengthy incarceration for so many drug offenders affect families, communities and the economy. One in 28 children has a parent in prison — and one in nine in the African-American community. A recent Villanova study found that “poverty would have decreased by more than 20 percent” from 1980 to 2004 “had mass incarceration not occurred.” Another recent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that incarceration leads to an average 11 percent drop in wages, a loss of nine weeks of employment per year and an overall 40 percent drop in annual earnings.
These facts explain why so many politicians, on both sides of the aisle, are now willing to take a hard look at real criminal justice reform. The problem is simply too large to ignore.
Fortunately, some politicians are turning their words into action. In Congress, Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Bobby Scott, D-Va., recently introduced the SAFE Justice Act, which would dramatically reform federal sentencing. It limits the application of long mandatory minimum drug sentences to the leaders of large drug organizations, expands the judicial “safety valve” so judges have more discretion when sentencing nonviolent offenders and strengthens alternative programs like drug courts, which help addicts get back on the right path.
Such reforms could restore justice to those who have been denied it and make Americans safer overall. Recent criminal justice reforms at the state level have shown that a drop in imprisonment rates can be accompanied by a drop in overall crime rates — something that’s happened in no fewer than 32 states from 2008 to 2013.
Such is the positive result of replacing a “tough on crime” mentality with a “smart on crime” one. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, John Boehner and other prominent leaders are now willing to do just that. Although they have yet to agree on the specifics of a criminal justice reform package, there are now undeniable signs that a bipartisan deal can be reached. That can’t come soon enough.
Ms. Stewart is president and founder of Families Against Mandatory Minimums. Mr. Holden is general counsel of Koch Industries, Inc. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
