amna: It's a microcosm of the
larger debate about changing the
nation's criminal justice
system.
This week, Republicans in
congress have taken steps to
block a new criminal code in
Washington, D.C.
The constitution gives congress
oversight of d.c.'s local
policies.
And yesterday, the U.S. House of
representatives voted to
disapprove of d.c.'s new law,
which lowers some maximum
criminal penalties.
The senate needs to weigh in
next.
Lisa Desjardins has more on the
proposed changes.
Lisa: Washington, d.c.'s new
code, which passed the city
council, erases some antiquated
laws and more clearly defines
others.
It also eliminates most
mandatory minimum sentences and
lowers maximum sentences for
several crimes, including
robbery and illegal possession
of a firearm.
To discuss this and the larger
debate around crime and
punishment.
I am joined by Amy Fettig,
executive director of the
sentencing project, and Zack
Smith, a fellow with the
heritage foundation's Edwin
Meese center for legal and
judicial studies.
Thank you to you both.
Amy, d.c.'s new code has many
assets.
It increases some penalties,
lowers others.
I think that is what I want to
focus on.
On the sentencing part, what is
the argument for lowering some
of those maximum sentences?
Amy: D.c.'s criminal code was
vastly outdated.
It has not been updated in over
a century.
In contrast to many states that
updated their criminal codes in
the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's,
D.C. Has never done that.
So it was past time for an
overhaul to modernize the
criminal code, to rationalize
the criminal code in the
district of Columbia, and make
it more proportional and fair.
Lisa: You see those maximum
sentences that you believe were
too high as outdated.
Amy: Absolutely.
In fact, a lot of the sentences
in the new criminal code are
still very harsh, and frankly
far harsher than some of the
sentences we see in other states
like Kentucky and Georgia and
Tennessee.
From my perspective, they could
actually be less harsh, but
right now what we've got in the
update is the will of the
people, and it was a product of
16 years of deliberations by
prosecutors, defense attorneys,
judges, and legal experts.
Lisa: This is a national
conversation.
D.c.'s situation is very
specific.
But talking nationally, I know
you believe lowering these
sentences is a bad idea.
You hear from Amy that they were
overly harsh.
Why do you think it is a bad
idea?
Zack: I disagree that the
sentences were overly harsh.
You look at specifics, it is
very troubling.
Most mandatory minimum sentences
were eliminated in this new
criminal code.
The only mandatory minimum that
remained was for first-degree
murder, and even that mandatory
minimum was lowered.
The other important point to
remember is maximum sentences
are rarely imposed.
Those are typically the
sentences that community members
feel are appropriate when the
worst iteration of a crime is
committed.
But it is typically a much less
harsh sentence that a judge
imposes in most cases where a
crime is committed.
When you are lowering the
maximum penalties, you are
lowering the actual penalties
that are imposed in many cases.
With the surge in violent crime
you are seeing not only in the
district of Columbia, but in
cities around the country right
now, this is not a good idea on
many levels.
Lisa: There is an assumption
that the judges will move.
I know the idea that D.C. Had
was that they were trying to
align the penalties more with
what judges have been issuing.
I have to ask, is there evidence
that says higher maximum
penalties for criminals actually
reduces crime?
Zack: There's a lot of studies
out there on this issue, and we
do know that lengthier sentences
do in fact reduce recidivism
rates, the amount of times that
an individual repeats an offense
after their release from
incarceration.
The U.S. Sentencing commission
has released Avril reports
highlighting that fact.
The most recent one from this
summer where they found that
lengthier terms of incarceration
do lower recidivism rates.
Lisa: Do hire maximum sentences
reduce crime?
Amy: Absolutely not.
We know from 50 years of mass
incarceration in this country
that started in 1973 and now we
have had 50 years in 2023, that
bringing more people into
prisons and jails and keeping
them there for longer periods of
time does not make our community
safer.
More prisons and -- if more
prisons and longer sentences
made our community safer, the
United States would be the
safest in the world because we
incarcerate more people for
harsher sentences than any other
industrialized country in the
world.
The fact is, it doesn't work.
Decades of research have
demonstrated that long sentences
don't create safe communities.
So what we are facing now is a
choice.
Are we going to build more
prisons?
Are we going to put more people
behind bars?
Or are we going to invest in
public safety, in the solutions
we know work, like preventing
violence?
Lisa: That is what I want to ask
you about.
This is an important discussion
and we could spend a lot more
time on it.
But neither of you really thinks
reducing maximum sentences is
the best way to curb crime
ultimately.
I want to ask you, what do you
think is the best way?
Zack: I think the best way to
reduce crime is put more
officers on the street, empower
them to do their jobs, to keep
communities safe, and to
prosecute offenders and seek
justice for victims.
I have to push back on one thing
that Amy said, this idea that we
have a mass incarceration
problem in our country.
It is a myth.
If you look at who is actually
incarcerated in state and
federal prisons, it is repeat
violent offenders.
It is people who have committed
violent crimes like rape,
robbery, or murder.
One of the reasons we have a
higher incarceration rate than
other westernized countries is
we have more violent crimes than
other westernized countries.
If you look at when the prison
population began to increase, it
was at the same time the violent
crime rate in our country
exploded by 350%.
Amy: There is no question we
have a mass incarceration
problem in this country.
This is not an urban-rural
problem, this is an American
issue.
We are ready for something
different.
We have been locking up more
people than anyone in history
for longer periods of time.
In most states, the fastest
growing population of people are
over 50.
They don't need to be in prison
now.
But the fact that they are their
means we are spending billions
of dollars every single year on
failed strategies when we could
be investing in our communities.
We could be investing in
violence prevention programs.
What does not build safe
communities is more prisons.
If that were the case, we would
be the safest country in the
world, and we aren't.
Lisa: Something so many
Americans are thinking about.
Thank you both for your time and
continuing the conversation.
Zack: Thank you.