Experts question wisdom of Drug War policies

Marc Mauer of The Sentencing Project questions harsh drug offender sentences.On Friday, November 11, 2011, the Georgetown Criminal Law Association held a symposium on the challenges of the War on Drugs.

Michael Satin, Training Director at the District of Columbia Public Defender Service, focused on the ironic impact of criminalizing low-level drug laws, criticizing low-level drug prosecutions for displacing efforts to combat violent crime by monopolizing resources and damaging the relationship between police and the community.

Judge Gregory E. Mize of the District of Columbia Superior Court added that the most common reason for acquittal that he sees in his trials is that jurors do not trust police witnesses. Aaron Houston, Executive Director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, also discussed the unforeseen consequences of drug laws, describing the rise of crystal meth as a result of efforts to combat amphetamine use.

Speakers differed over their perceptions of sentencing schemes for drug offenders. Mushtaq Gunja, Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Maryland, stated that he mostly sees mandatory minimums being applied to drug offenders, and that 20-30 year sentences for drug crimes are not common. Judge Mize and Professor Abbe Smith both criticized mandatory minimums for removing judicial discretion, and keynote speaker Marc Mauer, Executive Director of the Sentencing Project, criticized mandatory minimums for shifting discretion to prosecutors in determining what to charge and how to plea bargain.

Public Defender Satin criticized the debilitating effect of prison time on drug offenders. He stated that the rehabilitative model of prison has been lost, that “prison becomes doing nothing all the time.” While he acknowledged that drug users are not necessarily productive members of society, he emphasized that he collateral consequences of prison time are enormous, that ex-prisoners lose access to jobs, education loans, public housing, etc, and emerge from prison with nothing.

Several speakers advocated treatment for addiction and looking at drug use as a public health problem, instead of as a criminal justice problem. Judge Mize emphasized the rise of the therapeutic justice movement: “criminalization doesn’t deal with the addiction, criminalization doesn’t deal with why one would turn to the cocaine peddler on the corner.”

He saw improvement through the use of drug courts and mental health courts as advances in talking about these problems in the courtroom.

Public Defender Satin countered however, describing how he often finds himself giving counterintuitive advice to defendants, as those with real addiction problems will fail drug court programs and wind up serving more time than if they declined the program, and only occasional, non-addicted users will succeed.

In his keynote speech, Mr. Maur focused on the racial implications of drug laws. He began his speech with the startling statistic that “one of three black males and one of six Latino males born today can expect to spend time in prison.”

While crime had declined, he starkly stated that if one believes the decline is due to incarcerating more people, then those minority children will need to go to prison to keep crime down. Mr. Mauer focused on the disparate effect of seemingly innocuous policies like enhancements for drug crimes in a school zone, which disproportionately burden minorities in cramped urban areas instead of whites in expansive suburbs.

Public Defender Satin echoed these concerns, stating that while drug use is comparable among races and socioeconomic status, that is not reflected in lockup, as it is much easier to police poor communities where drug use happens in the open instead of in private suburban basements.

Speakers also discussed how these systemic problems can be fixed. Mr. Houston emphasized the necessity of bipartisanship, with Republicans supporters of drug law reform like Grover Norquist “giving spine to the Democratic Party.”  Mr. Mauer saw hope in an unusual group of voices coming to the fore, praising Gil Kerlikowske, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Judge Mize and Professor Smith emphasized the economic advantages of reform, and the large savings that can be achieved with reducing the prison population and focusing on re-entry programs. All agreed that a consortium of enlightenment and leadership was necessary.

Judge Mize was not encouraged by the political climate for elected leaders, however, who must face religious communities, merchants, and school communities where the notion of a more sophisticated drug policy is “not helpful.”

The symposium concluded pleas for decision-makers to educate themselves better about the challenges of drug laws. Judge Mize wished for politicians to spend a day in court, observing the proceedings. Professor Smith, however, focused on the role of law students as future leaders and policy-makers, and urged all law students to visit a prison and observe court proceedings before graduation, in order to be able to do greater service to our chosen profession.