Yesterday, the nonprofit group Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) released the results of a survey that asked MA candidates their views on drug sentencing laws. Criminal justice reform is an important issue so I encourage everyone to read the full survey before voting, but here’s their summary:
Drug sentencing reform is now a mainstream issue. Some candidates specifically include the issue in their campaign materials. A few of the candidates we contacted requested more information, but nobody asked, “What’s a mandatory minimum sentence?” Even those who are still fine-tuning their positions understood the issue.
Drug sentencing reform is now also a bipartisan issue. Granted, Massachusetts is heavily Democratic, but Democrats and Republicans alike favor the repeal or reform of mandatory minimums as part of an overall approach to substance abuse. This is consistent with the bipartisan support for mandatory minimum reform at the federal level and in other states. Independent or minor party candidates also favor repeal.
Of the 22 candidates who responded to our survey, most of them – 86% – favor either repeal or reform of mandatory minimum sentences for drugs.
- 16 (or nearly 73% ) support repeal;
- Another 3 (or nearly 14%) support further reforms, short of outright repeal;
- One candidate opposed repeal but is willing to listen to the experts on possible reforms;
- Only one candidate opposes repeal or further reforms;
- One candidate felt the issue was beyond the scope of the office he was seeking.
No candidate was in favor of longer mandatory minimum sentences or additional mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses.
One other highlight: John Miller, the Republican candidate for Attorney General, was one of few who declined to answer. Meanwhile, Maura Healey not only expressed her support for sensible reforms, she provided the most detailed response of all 22 candidates who responded.
It seems to me sentencing ranges should be legislated rather than just made up as you go along by a judge. Whatever the low end of that range is is by definition the mandatory minimum is it not? Personally I think there should be standards which if the judge strongly feels extenuating circumstances suggest leniency he should be required to put his opinion in writing and it would be open to appeal by the state. Standard sentencing it seems obvious to me is also fairer sentencing.
I agree that sentences should be legislated rather than completely up to a judge (though there are some good arguments for a common law approach), but the movement against mandatory minimums is focused on prison sentences, not punishments in general. The argument isn’t that there should be no “minimum sentences” in terms of, say, a misdemeanor coming with a fine of $100-1000, but that drug crimes shouldn’t come with mandatory minimum prison sentences since they are ineffective and unjust.
…that we shouldn’t be so quick to incarcerate for non-violent drug offenders, say so, which makes a lot more sense and in my mind is a completely different question.