If passed, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act would reduce mandatory minimum sentences that advocates find ‘excessive’ and ‘unjust’

This article is more than 4 years old

This article is more than 4 years old

A bipartisan group of senators unveiled a bill that would make sweeping changes to criminal justice in the US, including a long-awaited scaling-back of mandatory minimum sentences.



A criminal justice reform bill that doesn't end mandatory minimums isn't enough | Chandra Bozelko Read more

Introducing the bill at the Capitol on Thursday, Republican senator Chuck Grassley called it “a landmark piece of legislation”, and praised its bipartisan nature. “This is a bill we can be proud of,” he said.

“Today is one of the finer days in Congress, especially when you compare with what’s happening along the way [in the House of Representatives],” said Democratic senator Chuck Schumer, who also spoke at the announcement.

If passed into law, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act will reduce the mandatory life without parole sentence for a third drug or violent offence and the mandatory minimums on drug and gun possession.

Notably, it would also expand the “safety valve” exception, which allows non-violent drug offenders with non-serious criminal histories to escape mandatory minimums. It would also allow some prisoners to earn time credits on their sentence to complete rehabilitation programmes.

In an effort to reduce the disparity in sentencing between drug and violent offences, it also creates new mandatory minimum sentences of 10 years for interstate domestic violence resulting in a death, and a new mandatory minimum of five years for providing weapons for terrorists.

The bill was introduced by Grassley, the chair of the senate judiciary committee, and the second-ranking Democrat, Dick Durbin.

Durbin, who worked closely with Republican Mike Lee on parts of the bill, thanked Lee, describing them as a “political odd couple”.

“The question will be asked: can you get this through the Senate?” Durbin said, but pointed to the bipartisan nature of the bill as a good sign that it could. “The next question is, what will happen in the House,” he added. “I don’t know.”

“Who knows?” Schumer cut in.

After the announcement, leading Democratic senator Leahy told the Guardian how the bill does in the House depends on how well the bill does in the Senate. “If you get a good groundswell here, there are a lot of people sympathetic to our coalition here that would support [the bill] in the house,” he said. But he pointed to the upcoming change in house leadership as a point of uncertainty.

Schumer echoed Leahy’s concerns, but told the Guardian “some of the people on the hard right” support the bill, which differentiates it from other bipartisan efforts.

Julie Stewart, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) praised the measure in a statement on Thursday morning, calling it “the most significant sentencing reform legislation in a generation”.

Molly Gill, the government affairs counsel for FAMM, told the Guardian that while they were supporting the bill, “it doesn’t go as far as we would like – which is a full repeal of mandatory minimums.”

She said, however, that it was “one of the more historic pieces of legislation we’ve seen in a long time. It would address some of the worst-case scenarios that often cross our desks here, in terms of people getting life without parole for drug offences.”

Momentum has been steadily building for reform in the area of criminal justice, but the Senate announcement represents a high-watermark of bipartisan support.

In June, representatives Jim Sensenbrenner and Bobby Scott introduced the Safe, Accountable, Fair and Effective Justice Act, which goes even further than the Senate reforms proposed on Thursday, and the two leading members of the House judiciary committee are reportedly working on their own legislation.