DAs: Listen to voters, not Sessions

Over the last couple of years, the country has seen a significant shift away from the "tough on crime" approach of the past toward a "smart on crime" approach, with notable bipartisan support. Nowhere is this trajectory more visible than in California, where we spend $70,812 per inmate in state prison each year and incarcerate around 120,000 people. Voters and policymakers alike increasingly understand that the ruthless and senseless mass incarceration fervor sparked in the 80s and 90s with the War on Drugs has come at great human and taxpayer cost with very little benefit to the well-being, economic security, and safety, of our communities.

Despite this move toward criminal justice reform policy and the undeniable support for smart reforms, Attorney General Jeff Sessions last month decided to revive the failed War on Drugs approach with the issuance of a two-page memo. The memo directs federal prosecutors to "charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense" thus signaling a return to mandatory minimum sentencing. This new policy rescinds a 2013 policy put in place by then Attorney General Eric Holder, which directed federal prosecutors to only use charges that trigger mandatory minimum sentencing for "serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers."

In issuing this new policy, Sessions ignores the progress we have made as a nation to begin to right the wrongs that have been inflicted primarily on low-income people and communities of color as a result of overly harsh drug policies. By directing prosecutors to aggressively pursue charges with high mandatory minimum sentences, he undermines judicial discretion and reasserts the federal prosecutors' enormous power over people's lives. He also ignores the growing body of research that shows us that policies like mandatory minimums have failed to deliver on their promise of reducing sentencing disparities, reducing the crime rate, and reducing costs. The truth is, research shows, that mandatory minimums have led to far greater sentencing disparities, have had no demonstrable effects on the crime rate, and have led to ballooning costs of incarceration. California's own mandatory minimum sentencing scheme, Three Strikes, is a good case study for how these harsh policies have failed.

Enacted in 1994, California's Three Strikes law responded to a series of tragic murders and was intended to "keep murderers, rapists, and child molesters behind bars." Using this fear based rhetoric, the measure overwhelmingly passed with 71 percent of the vote. However, in the years after enactment it became increasingly clear that the law was not being used selectively for the most violent crimes, but instead resulted in life sentences for nonviolent offenses. In addition, statistics showed that the law disproportionately affected people of color - blacks accounted for 45 percent of inmates incarcerated under Three Strikes while only representing 6.5 percent of the population in California - and budget research showed the policy led to increasing corrections costs - $19 million per year was added to the state prison budget. In 2012, the failure of this policy in California was finally recognized when 69 percent of voters approved Proposition 36 to reform the law. This was part of a sea change in public opinion on criminal justice reform, a shift Sessions seems to be ignoring.

Although the attorney general's directive is not binding on state and local prosecutors, the policy earned the support of the National District Attorney's Association (NDAA), which represents thousands of elected and appointed state and local prosecutors. Most alarming of all, several California district attorneys hold key positions within the NDAA: San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos is the current president of NDAA, with Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey and Ventura County District Attorney Greg Totten both currently serving as vice-presidents of the association. Further, for the past three election cycles, majorities of voters in Los Angeles, Ventura and San Bernardino have demonstrated strong support for reform and a desire to reduce the jail and prison populations by passing a series of criminal justice reform initiatives.

But not all state and local prosecutors support Session's policy change. Just a week after he issued the memo, 30 current and former prosecutors signed on to a letter opposing the new federal policy and urging Sessions to rescind. The letter notes that, "there is no empirical evidence to suggest that increases in sentences, particularly for low-level offenses, decreases the crime rate. Instead, we know that in many instances contact with the criminal justice system exacerbates the likelihood of future criminal conduct." The letter continues by promising to, "continue in our own jurisdictions to undertake innovative approaches that promote public safety and fairness, and that ensure that law enforcement's finite resources are directed to arrest and prosecution of the most serious offenders." The sentiments expressed in this letter appear more aligned with the values and the will of California voters. Notably, of California's 58 elected district attorneys, only San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón and Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen appeared in the list of signers. We should applaud their bold leadership in opposing regressive policies lauded by the current administration.

While Sessions' memo is a destructive step into the dark ages on the part of the federal government, California's attorney general and elected district attorneys would be wise to avoid past missteps, and instead listen to the will of their constituents, who increasingly prefer the implementation of smart justice reforms that prioritize treatment, rehabilitation and prevention over incarceration.

The people of California are demanding a new era, not a return to the War on Drugs, and the district attorneys elected in California should listen.