Thursday, September 19, 2013
"Scott Burns from National District Attorneys Association makes the prosecutors case for mandatory minimums"
Douglas Berman has this post at Sentencing Law & Policy, excerpting and critiquing the remarks. From the critique:
I will not seek to refute all the points made in this statement (some of which are plainly inaccurate) . . . . The essence of this defense of mandatory minimums is these mandated prison sentences have been prosecutors' "best player" in fighting the drug war and the broader war on crime. In the end, I am pleased to see a state prosecutor here making an honest and straight-forward and relatively simple claim that the crime control ends are worth the mandatory minimum means. And, candidly, if crime was still at levels that we saw 20 years ago, I might share this view. But I think even fans who get excited by huge wins by their favorite team still believe it is more fair, more humane and ultimately more effective in the long-term to stop beating up on the other team with "the most effective sticks" once they are up three touchdowns. And that is why I think it is time to see thefederal prosecution team have to try to "running up the score" against serious crime at a lower human and economic costs than is currently being endured.