Hearing of House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security - Implications of the Booker/Fanfan Decisions for the Federal Sentencing...
HEARING OF HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY - IMPLICATIONS OF THE BOOKER/FANFAN DECISIONS FOR THE FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to have this platform today to talk about an issue that troubles me and others on this Committee and obviously Mr. Conyers so much.
Even though we are here to talk about Booker and to talk about the guidelines becoming advisory, that is not the major issue for me. As a matter of fact, I would submit to you without having talked to all of my colleagues, those of us who understand what racism and discrimination are all about, we would like to have clear rules that everybody would have to abide by. I think we are served better by that.
So when you talk about the sentencing guidelines being advisory and you have the opportunity for judges to go up or down, et cetera, that is a little bit troubling because we know that we will suffer under that kind of discretion, for the most part. History has proven that and I don't think it is going to change.
So for me, it is not a big issue, but here is the issue for me: Mandatory minimum sentencing. As my colleague said on the opposite side of the aisle, that is our fault. What happened in the Congress of the United States led by two of the gentlemen that he identified, and I just asked Mr. Regula about it and he didn't quite remember it, is what I am concerned about.
Now, what do you have to do with that? I mean, you didn't come here to talk about mandatory minimum sentencing as it relates to crack cocaine, et cetera. But we are watching all of these low-level drug persons with five grams of crack cocaine be sentenced to 5 years in prison or more and the judge has no discretion in the issue. They are filling up the prisons and lives are being destroyed. Nineteen-year-olds, 20-year-olds are going to prison, some of them in college. They are not criminals, they are just stupid. They are not criminals and their lives should not be shut off in that manner.
So here is what we are saying. While we are discussing these kinds of issues, can we use this as an opportunity to talk about not only what the Congress should be considering as we take a look at Booker, but what we should be thinking about and how we can encourage the Congress of the United States to look at these mandatory minimum sentences.
I believe that the Sentencing Commission, and I have to--we have to accept blame for that on both sides of the aisle. I can recall when the Sentencing Commission came up with different guidelines and Bill Clinton vetoed it, as I remember, or didn't do something which caused it to go into effect.
So because you are listened to, because you are in the Justice Department, because you are people who deal with these issues, let us couple our discussion about mandatory minimum sentencing as we talk about these sentencing guidelines. Let me tell you, under these mandatory minimum sentences, not only do we have people being sentenced more harshly than we have people who commit real crimes being sentenced, we have people who are committing crimes of robbery and rape and other kinds of serious felonies who are not sentenced as harshly as a 19-year-old who is stupid enough to try to have five grams of crack cocaine in their possession. And they are disproportionately minority, even though the greater number who are involved with crack cocaine are not minority.
So when you hear us talk about this, it is not because we are blaming you. It is not because we think you can fix it. But we think that you can couple the discussion so that we can try and move the Congress of the United States to correct mandatory minimum sentencing. I disagreed with all mandatory minimum sentences. I think judges should have some discretion. I think they should have the ability to look at the individual, to look at their past history, to look at the intent, everything. However, I am focused on mandatory minimum sentences as it relates to crack cocaine sentencing.
So if you heard my colleague John Conyers today, what he is saying to you is, why aren't any of you interested in discussing mandatory minimum sentencing, particularly as it relates to these drug offenses? You know in your heart that these sentences are excessive and that they are detrimental and that they are doing nothing to deter crime. As a matter of fact, criminals, real criminals, are getting away with much lighter sentencing.
Having said that, I told my Chairman I had no questions, but I had something I wanted to tell you. I have told you. That is it. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source