Why the First Step Act is just that — a first step towards criminal justice reform in America

Passage of bill represents rare bipartisan victory as it attracts support from both sides of the aisle

Chris Riotta
New York
Wednesday 19 December 2018 16:32 GMT
Comments
Senate passes criminal justice reform bill First Step Act

The First Step Act is being hailed as a revolutionary “big bipartisan victory” that may finally pave the way for substantial criminal justice reform in America after clearing the Senate on Tuesday night.

The legislation, which Donald Trump says he looks forward to signing into law, could truly mark a turning point for the United States’ systemic problems with mass incarceration and lengthy mandatory minimum sentencing requirements. The bill gives judges more discretion when sentencing some drug offenders and boosts prisoner rehabilitation efforts. It also reduces the life sentence for some drug offenders with three convictions, or “three strikes”, to 25 years.

The catch? The First Step Act only applies to about 10 per cent of America’s prison population, as it solely affects federal prisoners.

Kara Gotsch, director of strategic initiatives at the Sentencing Project, described the First Step Act as an “important milestone in the long road to ending mass incarceration”.

“Thousands of people will encounter a federal criminal justice system that is fairer and more humane because of the changes in the First Step Act,” she said. “I applaud the Senate but urge them to do more to ensure that people who present little threat to the public have an opportunity to return home, that prisons are transformed by shrinking populations, and that racial disparity in the system is eradicated.”

Senate Democrats largely praised the bill, with Cory Booker noting it was just “one small step” towards “healing” for minority communities who have been most impacted by America’s war on drugs.

“Let’s make no mistake, this legislation, which is one small step, will affect thousands and thousands of lives,” the New Jersey senator said on Tuesday night.

The American Civil Liberties Union also celebrated the bill’s passing after initially opposing the House version, saying that while it was “by no means perfect”, the group was “glad to see common sense prevail in the Senate voting to move this bill closer to the finish line”.

Senate passage of the bill by a vote of 87-12 marks the end of years of negotiations and gives the president a signature policy victory, with the outcome hailed by scores of conservative and liberal advocacy groups. The House is expected to pass the bill this week, sending it to the president’s desk for his signature.

“America is the greatest Country in the world and my job is to fight for ALL citizens, even those who have made mistakes,” Mr Trump tweeted after the vote. “This will keep our communities safer, and provide hope and a second chance, to those who earn it. In addition to everything else, billions of dollars will be saved. I look forward to signing this into law!”

While the First Step Act doesn't resolve decades of harsh sentencing practices across the country, it could serve as a precedent for states seeking to overturn criminal justice legislation from the 1980s and 1990s.

For example, one provision would allow about 2,600 federal prisoners sentenced for crack cocaine offences before August 2010 the opportunity to petition for a reduced penalty.

“The First Step Act takes lessons from history and from states – our laboratories of democracy – to reduce crime, save taxpayer dollars and strengthen faith and fairness in our criminal justice system,” Republican senator Chuck Grassley said in a statement.

A rare bipartisan effort in the current political landscape, the act wasn't always a surefire victory, appearing to have stalled in recent weeks as senators attempted to add legislation that would have greatly reduced the number of prisoners who participate in certain new programmes.

Mr Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pleaded with the Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell to bring it up for a vote. With the president’s urging, Mr McConnell eventually agreed, and voted for the bill as well.

The Senate rejected three amendments on Tuesday from Republican senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and John Kennedy of Louisiana, who said the bill endangered public safety. Supporters voiced concerns that passing any of the amendments would have sunk the bill.

One amendment would have excluded more prisoners from participating in educational and training programmes that allow them to earn credits. Those credits can then be used to gain an earlier release to a halfway house or home confinement to finish out their sentence.

Another amendment would have required that victims be notified before a prisoner gets that earlier release. The third would have required the Federal Bureau of Prisons to track and report the re-arrest rate for each prisoner who gets early release.

“While the bill has marginally improved from earlier versions, I’m disappointed my amendments to exclude child molesters from early release and to protect victims’ rights were not adopted,” Mr Cotton said. “I also remain concerned that reducing sentences for drug traffickers and violent felons is a threat to public safety.”

Democratic senator Dick Durbin said the bill already carves out some 60 different crimes that make prisoners ineligible for early release to a halfway house or home confinement. He said Mr Cotton’s amendment was too expansive and would prevent at least 30,000 prisoners from participation.

Mr Durbin said the Federal Bureau of Prisons also gives victims the opportunity to be notified upon a change in the prisoner’s status, but it’s a choice. He said about 10 per cent of victims choose not to be notified because of the trauma involved in revisiting the crime.

The amendment from Mr Cotton and Mr Kennedy would have made this a requirement.

Support free-thinking journalism and attend Independent events

“Supporting the Cotton amendment is basically saying to these crime victims, ‘We’re going to force this information on you whether it’s in the best interest of your family, whether you want it or not,’” Mr Durbin said. “That is not respectful of crime victims.”

Law enforcement groups were more split on the bill. It was backed by the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police but opposed by the National Sheriff’s Association. The union representing federal prison guards also supported the measure.

Additional reporting by AP

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in