State Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, seems to think that mandatory minimum sentences for criminals were put in place back in the 1980s and ’90s as part of a mindless punitive trend.
“Once upon a time, it was fashionable for politicians to kick felons when they were down,” Steadman recently told Denver Post reporters. “I think those days have come and gone.”
Steadman is sponsor of Senate Bill 98, which would abolish many mandatory minimum sentences, giving judges more discretion, as well as eliminate potentially harsher sentences that are now available for crimes deemed to be an “extraordinary risk of harm to society.”
The bill goes too far. It would take a blunderbuss to the state’s sentencing law when more targeted reforms are needed.
But first a word on the recent history of sentencing. It is true that measures years ago stiffening sentences and imposing mandatory minimums occasionally went too far. But not always. And not without reasons that had little to do with “fashionable” theories.
First, fast-rising crime rates — and particularly violent crime — had become a growing concern. This is easy to forget in an era when violent crime is much lower than it was at its peak in the early 1990s.
Second, typical sentences for some crimes at the time, particularly sex offenses but for other categories as well, had been scandalously light.
Third, critics were concerned that open-ended discretion for judges had resulted in wildly disparate outcomes for defendants convicted of nearly identical crimes — differences that appeared unfair, hard to defend, and sometimes even biased.
In response to these concerns, lawmakers decided to increase a number of criminal penalties — and especially for crimes of “extraordinary risk of harm to society” — and somewhat restrict judicial discretion.
Both reactions made sense.
For some crimes, however, the pendulum swung too far. That’s why we’ve supported reforms such as a bill in 2013 revising Colorado’s drug sentencing rules, as well as bipartisan legislation before Congress right now that would reduce a number of mandatory minimum sentences at the federal level.
No doubt further reform is appropriate on a crime-by-crime basis. But dispensing with mandatory minimums across the board as well as enhanced penalties for a wide variety of serious crimes would represent a huge philosophical shift in terms of sentencing, one for which there is probably little public support.
And ironically, it could result in the same sort of glaring inequities that concerned lawmakers who wrote the sentences now under attack.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
