Skip to main content
News

Mandatory sentences don’t benefit public safety

May 09, 2015
In a letter to the editor of the Des Moines Register, The Sentencing Project's Federal Advocacy Counsel Jeremy Haile refutes U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley's recent claims that mandatory drug sentences are necessary to protect communitie

In a letter to the editor of the Des Moines Register, The Sentencing Project’s Federal Advocacy Counsel Jeremy Haile refutes U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley’s recent claims that mandatory drug sentences are necessary to protect communities.

There is strong evidence to the contrary. Last year, the National Research Council published a report finding that “the evidence is insufficient to justify the conclusion that these harsher punishments yield measurable public safety benefits.” Instead, mandatory minimum sentences often result in long prison terms for people convicted of low-level offenses.

The truth is that mandatory drug penalties, while enacted as a crime-fighting policy, have exacted enormous costs — both fiscal and human — without benefiting public safety. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley has a remarkable opportunity to help restore a smarter balance.

Read the letter in the Des Moines Register.

 

 
Related Posts
publications
July 20, 2022

Comment on Home Confinement Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act

The Sentencing Project's Executive Director Amy Fettig submitted comments to the Office of the Attorney General on behalf of The Sentencing project regarding the United States Department of Justice’s proposed rule on CARES Act Home Confinement.
publications
July 27, 2022

Comments to the Food and Drug Administration on the Proposed Ban of Menthol Cigarettes

The Sentencing Project submitted comments to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the proposed Tobacco Product Standard for Menthol in Cigarettes.