President Barack Obama made an open declaration denouncing mass incarceration, and took action by commuting the sentence of 46 non-violent drug offenders, wrote Andrea Roth.
However, Roth’s column, featured in the Los Angeles Times, made clear that the White House and reformers cannot reach a significant reduction in the prison population without reaching beyond non-violent drug offenses. The criminal justice system at some point must address massive sentence disparities if any noticeable dent is to be made at reducing the population.
While the prosecution of drug offenses is often looked at as one of the reason for mass incarceration, they only account for 21 percent of the prison population growth. John Pfaff of Fordham Law School, an economist and criminal justice academic, used data from the National Prisoner Statistics database to come up with the percentage number. Pfaff’s research also showed that there has been an increase in violent offenses between1980 and 2009, accounting for more than half of prison population growth.
There is a level of misconception as to what is considered a violent offense. In California for example, a violent offense can occur without anyone being physically harmed or even present at the crime scene. Currently, if a person enters an occupied dwelling— whether there is someone home or not—it is considered a violent offense. If a theft occurs and it takes place in someone’s garage, it is considered a violent crime, etc.
In addition, crimes that are classified as violent under California’s criminal codes are often directly or indirectly related to drug addiction, sales or possession, concluded Roth. The use of the term “violent crime” has been socially constructed in legal terms which stretch across a wide span of understanding—and can be confusing.
Roth pointed out that drug offenders as a group are being given preferential treatment by enacting leniency over those who have committed more serious crimes. Often these more serious crimes result in sentences that are disproportionate to the actual harm done, causing longer prison terms and clogging the system.
Recent reforms in California’s Three Strikes Law have done little to bring relief to the state’s bustling prison population. A person who commits a crime currently under California’s violent crime statutes still faces a mandatory minimum of 25 years to life, even if no one is injured in the offense.
However, the process of over-punishing an offender because they have committed a violent crime can no longer be an excuse to imprison people to terms beyond what the sentence for the crime carries, Roth concluded. “Addressing the over-punishment and racially disparate treatment of violent offenders is a necessary step toward reining in this country’s bloated prison system.”
