Read on Twitter
THREAD: We need to talk about mandatory minimums and the Bad Cases. Reform opponents want to use these cases to justify carve-outs or otherwise water down full abolition of mandatory minimums. Here’s why they’re wrong. 1/15 https://twitter.com/kevinaring/status/1355350865947848710
First, most of the very worst cases don’t involve mandatory minimum sentences. Murders, most rapes and sex offenses, robberies, and serious assaults (even those resulting in permanent disability) are not punishable by man mins. 2/15
Reform opponents and regressive prosecutors all know this, of course. But that doesn’t stop them from falsely telling reporters and legislators that abolition will allow murderers and rapists to run free. They’re wrong, and they know it. 3/15
Every time you see someone refer to a bad case when testifying against mandatory minimum reform, you should be asking: Did that case actually involve a mandatory minimum sentence? Because if it didn’t, it’s just manipulation designed to block reform. 4/15
Second, let’s consider serious cases where mandatory minimums *do* apply. The Louisa case referenced in the story above is a good example. Does anyone believe that a jury or judge in Louisa County would not have punished that guy severely if not for mandatory minimums?!? 5/15
Anyone think that a Louisa County jury or judge would have given that guy 6 months if the legislature hadn’t forced their hand? It’s deeply insulting to our communities to suggest that they don’t have the judgment to decide what a fair punishment is in a case like that. 6/15
But this really is the anti-reform position: “We can’t trust judges and juries to punish people harshly enough. Only the General Assembly knows how to punish serious offenses properly.” It’s nonsense. Juries and judges represent our communities. 7/15
As a public defender, I assure you, juries know how to hand down harsh punishments in bad cases. They know the difference between someone who needs to be removed from society and someone who deserves a more lenient sentence. We should let them exercise that discretion. 8/15
Third, many people who commit terrible offenses were themselves the victims of serious crimes as children. Their trauma is often closely linked to their crimes. Advocates for victims should want juries and judges to consider this information when fashioning a fair sentence. 9/15
How to balance someone’s previous trauma history with the harm they’ve done by committing new crime is a very difficult question. But mandatory minimums force us to ignore that hard question, and prohibit judges and juries from using their judgment. That’s wrong. 10/15
Mandatory minimums force judges and juries, against their will, to punish people more harshly than judges and juries think they deserve. That’s the essence of the policy, handed down by people who have not heard the facts of the case or the history of the accused. 11/15
And finally, never forget that sentencing policy echoes throughout the legal process. Mandatory minimums distort plea negotiations and bail determinations. The threat of mandatory sentences terrify some people, leading them to give up their right to have a trial. 12/15
There is nothing more fundamental to our justice system than the right of someone to say “I didn’t do this, and I want a trial.” Mandatory sentencing deprives people of that right, and that deprivation is most harmful when the charges are the most serious offenses. 13/15
I urge @VASenateDems to stand firm with @SenEdwardsVA against carve-outs this week. I urge @VAHouseDems and @C_Herring to modify their bill to to ensure full abolition of mandatory minimums. Justice requires individualized sentencing, even in hard cases. 14/15
Please join @JusticeFwdVa, @FAMMFoundation, @ACLUVA, @AttyStepMorales and her progressive colleagues in this fight. Email your senators and delegates about mandatory sentencing this weekend. The time to act is now. We’re going to abolish mandatory minimums in Virginia. 15/15
