Law enforcement groups’ position misrepresented

As leaders of groups representing state and local prosecutors and sheriffs nationwide, we were extremely disappointed to read numerous articles this week falsely mischaracterizing our groups’ positions following Monday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to examine the merits of the S. 2123, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act.

It would appear that those reporting on our letters never read them. In fact, not one of our letters stated opposition to this pending legislation. In fact, the letters express support for many aspects of the bill as commonsense, targeted reforms aimed at ensuring appropriate sentences are imposed for certain crimes. These changes range from reducing the three- strike mandatory life provision down to 25 years, compassionate release for the elderly and terminally ill, evidence-based recidivism reduction programming for federal prisoners, and expansions of current law to include enhanced penalties for violent felons and for violent firearms offenders with prior state firearms offenses.

{mosads}Our letters did enunciate several concerns raised by our members, particularly the retroactive nature of many proposed provisions in the legislation. We strongly support individual review of petitions for retroactivity should this legislation be signed into law, and would encourage sponsors of the bill to include language ensuring that United States Attorneys in jurisdictions where the offenses in question originally occurred would have the ability to reject requests for a reduction in sentencing or pre-release custody. Our letters also expressed concerns with the reduction in the firearms enhancement from 25 to 15 years, moderate-risk prisoners being eligible for pre-release custody, the variations in state statutes potentially prohibiting the inclusion of state firearms offenses in sentencing decisions, the lack of language expressly including local law enforcement and prosecutors in analyzing the impact of reentry from state and federal prison, and the automatic nature of the expungement provisions for juvenile records with associated administrative burdens on law enforcement agencies under penalty of perjury.

Let us be clear—our concerns are ones that can be addressed through continued dialogue with members of Congress, a line of communication that has been open throughout the entire process and which is much appreciated by the state and local law enforcement community. We have no doubt that the drafters of this legislation come to the table with sincere intentions. We may not agree on everything in the proposed legislation, and none of the drafters would have written the bill this way on their own accord, but we all realize that the Bureau of Prison’s (BOP) budget continues to take a larger portion of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) budget at the expense of state and local grant programs that spur innovation in the field in policing, prosecution, diversion, drug treatment, among others.

We applaud the leadership of Sens. Grassley (R-Iowa), Leahy (D-Vt.), Cornyn (R-Texas), Schumer (D-N.Y.), Graham (R-S.C.), Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Lee (R-Utah) and Durbin (D-Ill.) in their efforts to tackle a very challenging, technical, and nuanced issue. Our members look forward to working with the senators in the weeks ahead as the bill moves through the legislative process.

Fitzpatrick is president of the National District Attorneys Association. Bouchard, sheriff of Oakland County, Michigan, is vice president of Government Affairs for the Major County Sheriffs’ Association. Thompson is executive director and CEO of the National Sheriffs’ Association.