The revised sentencing provisions of the ALI's Model Penal Code include a section, titled "Modification of Long-Term Prison Sentences," calling upon jurisdictions to allow resentencing of all individuals sentenced to long terms after they have served 15 years in prison. Senator Cory Booker has introduced a federal Second Look Act which would allow all persons to petition for resentencing after having served at least 10 years in prison.
Against backdrop, the proposed Second Look Amendment Act being considered by the Washington DC Council might look quite modest; it will allow only persons serving lengthy sentences who committed their crimes before age 25 to petition for a reduced sentence after having spending 15 years in prison (and DC law already allows this for those who committed their crimes before age 18). But this recent Washington Post editorial, headlined "A bill to reduce sentences for violent D.C. felons goes too far," launches an immodest attack on the proposal. The very headline of this editorial had me troubled, as the DC bill does not itself actually reduce any sentences, it just provides a chance for some individual offenders serving extremely long terms to seek sentence reconsideration.
The text of the WaPo editorial is no more accurate. In a closing paragraph, for example, the editorial asserts that "the measure would embrace a radical rejection of transparency in sentencing and straight dealings with victims." Huh? Given that this proposal is less ambitious than what the MPC now urges, there is really nothing "radical" about what this bill proposes. Plus, the operation of the proposed sentence reconsideration would by entirely "transparent" and should operate with crime victims having an opportunity to be involved in sentencing reconsideration. (Indeed, an article linked in the WaPo editorial highlights that some victims have been supportive of resentencings in the past.)
Helpfully, I have see two astute criminal justice commentators already busy on Twitter criticizing many more aspects of this WaPo editorial. Scott Hechinger here has multiple tweets highlighting the problems in the language used throughout the editorial. And John Pfaff here has multiple tweets highlighting how extreme US sentencing policies and practices are compared to the rest of the world. Pfaff's tweet thread concludes with this fitting final thought: "the attitudes embodied in this editorial — the cruel punitiveness that doesn’t even require a trace of justification — is why we are where we are, and why we risk staying here indefinitely."
Comments
Post a Comment