A true insider's reaction to Senator Cotton's commentary about federal criminal justice reform efforts
In prior posts here and here and here, I noted the commentary from Senator Tom Cotton attacking the federal criminal justice reform bills moving through Congress and some responses it has engendered. Today I receive an email from the son of a federal prisoner who maintains this interesting blog with postings from his father. The blog is worth checking out and it is titled "Blue Collar Criminal: 60-something small business owner. Screwed by the DOJ. Now I'm in prison. These are my thoughts."
In addition to pointing me to this blog, the prisoner's son shared his father's response to the piece Senator Cotton wrote in the Wall Street Journal and gave me permission to reprint his father's writings here:
I write this response to Sen. Tom Cotton's editorial ("Reform the Prisons Without Going Soft on Crime") from within my 8 X 10' federal prison cell I share with another medicare-eligible inmate. We agree that Cotton's essay should have been entitled - Reform the Prisons Without Doing a Damn Thing.
Cotton bases a lot of his assertions on statistics. In lieu of rebutting them, which would be a bit hard given my current lack of access to the internet, I have to settle on "inferior" data, which is the actual experience of actual prisoners whom I know, and find every bit as credible as anyone I knew on the "outside". The specific ones I'm bouncing Cotton's preposterous claims off of, are guys with 10+ years of incarceration, and who have experienced a wide variety of federal prisons before working themselves down to the federal camp. Though I've only been "down" one year, I find my bullsh*t detector is pretty reliable, and comes in handy when evaluating prison stories and reading editorials such as Cotton's. Based on these findings, I not only doubt the factuality of the statistics he uses, I gravely mistrust the motives behind them.
I came here a big fan of Sen. Cotton's. I first knew of him when he was a soldier, serving in Iraq, who was thought for awhile to be fictitious, due to the cognitive dissonance produced by the idea of a Harvard Univ./Harvard Law School grad being an infantry officer. I was very attuned to him, since my son was also in Iraq at the same time. He also put his pen to good use in rebutting anti-war propaganda. I was shocked, when my "adventure" with the DOJ brought me here, to find that Cotton, along with another of my conservative heroes - Sen. Jeff Sessions - were regarded as the mortal enemies of federal inmates, at least those who followed the progress of issues related to prison reform. My move away from fanhood has been sealed by this editorial, which has impressed me that he's traded the tools of war for the tools of sophistry.
For starters, in Cotton's mind, we are all "criminals", a word he loves to repeat. One-size-fits-all. Excuse my sensitivity, and I leave it to friends and family to defend my name, but many of these guys are as fine individuals as any I know, and were "productive, law-abiding citizens" until the feds came after them. (If you find that hard to swallow, you might care to read Harvey Silverglate's 'Three Felonies A Day'.)
He calls the House bill "flawed", and to the extent that it tampers with mandatory minimum sentences, or gives judges more discretion, a prescription for a "jailbreak". Why is lengthening a sentence wise, but shortening some foolish? Why is Cotton incapable of recognizing that prison populations are comprised of both truly dangerous, bad-guy criminals, and nonviolent, non-dangerous law-transgressors (including some who are truly and factually innocent)? Many of the guys I know in here would probably only "endanger communities" by cutting their neighbors lawn while they're on vacation. (And I'm not here making a distinction between "white-collar" and "drug offenders". I've learned that 'drug offender' is also not a one-size-fits-all category).
In his paragraph on the current "drug epidemic", he cites a number of statistics to justify mandatory minimum sentencing, but ends by essentially admitting those statistics might not be significant or prove his point.
His statements about how very little of recidivism is attributable to parole violation, does not purport with what I've seen nor the experience of my "experts". Most of the guys in my unit who have prior convictions are here now because their parole officer caught them 'high'. One guy here, a farm boy, had a prior drug felony, and "caught" an 8 year sentence for a felony firearms crime. He was deer hunting in a tree stand, having lost his right to bear arms by virtue of being a drug felon. Cotton's statistic to prove that drug convictions lead to rearrests for murder and rape 77% of the time, strikes my fellow inmates as not only false, but weird, crazy scare tactics.
Cotton's cherry-picked example of a drug dealer, Wendell Callahan, who murdered his girlfriend and her daughters, is great for demagogic purposes, but irrelevant to the debate of shortening the eligible sentences of nonviolent felons. This has to be weighed in a context that looks objectively at good outcomes as well as negative. Keeping families apart, and depriving children of their fathers, when its not necessary for the public good, is a social evil; and this is what mandatory minimum sentences often do. It leads to and insures that the next generation will likely repeat the mistakes of their parents.
Cotton attacks even the term "mass incarceration" on the strange basis that it couldn't possibly be big, since it could be bigger. I would say simply, that whichever country incarcerates the highest percentage of it's citizenry deserves the title of "mass incarcerator". This would be the United States. One book I've read states that the U.S. incarcerates 6 to 12 times more than the following countries: Canada, U.K., France, Germany, Italy or Australia. Yet Cotton thinks we don't lock up enough.
But it gets worse. Cotton writes that "virtually no one goes to federal prison for "low-level, nonviolent" drug offenses. Even I, a relative newbie, know guys who are not only here for that, but have sentences exceeding 10 years. He says those that are here for just that have only pleaded to that, though they actually committed more serious offenses. Baloney. Here's how that goes - they commit a crime deserving 1 year (for example) and plead "down" to a 4 year sentence, because they're being threatened with a 12 year sentence. My friends here can't believe that Cotton doesn't know this.
It's not unusual for the feds to concoct 20 charges, and settle for 2. It happens to everyone. It happened to me. They are extremely creative in their use of enhancements. (If the real crime were so heinous, why would they settle for a much lighter sentence?)
And then this - "Presidential pardons are a much better instrument of justice than broad sentencing reductions." Puh-leeze! (I think this ridiculous statement was just a set-up for his snarky shot at Trump.)
Cotton dismisses fiscal conservatives who would hope to reduce the cost of the American prison system. "The costs," he says, "of crime ... far outweigh the downsides of putting serious criminals behind bars." That all depends on what you consider to be "serious" criminals, and how you calculate the "downsides". At my camp, the common consensus is that the average age here is 50+. That includes quite a few in their 70s, and about 3 or 4 in their 80s. Maybe a dozen use canes. The financial distress on families and the negative economic impact on communities would certainly be part of the calculation of the "downsides", as would unquantifiable costs such as the loss of adult children to care for aged and debilitated parents. Certainly also there's a tremendous cost to communities who have lost key employees and employers, volunteers to non-profits, etc. There's a 80 yr old oncologist/researcher who's here due to a financial transgression of a side company he was a partner to.
As to his closing assertion that "mandatory minimums .... work", there is a great body of research that would show otherwise. I, for one, would love to see a poll taken of federal judges as to the truth of that statement.
Sen. Cotton ends his diatribe against prison reform, the kind that might actually reduce the prison population, with an affirmation of "faith-based and other antirecidivism programs". I heartily concur, in fact, I wish everyone would embrace the teaching of the Bible. In it we read this great truth - "For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumph over judgment." (James 2.13)
If that is deemed as soft on crime, we need to deeply consider where we are heading.
Comments
Post a Comment