Ingersoll, I love it when you use charts, but there's nothing like a good old-fashioned survey to get my policy wonk blood up in the morning.
- 62% of judges thought mandatory minimum sentences were too high for all crimes
- 71% thought mandatory minimums were too high for receipt of child pornography (which carries a 5-year prison term that some judges find too harsh in some cases)
- 76% thought mandatory minimums were too high for crack cocaine crimes
- 69% of judges thought the "safety valve" exception to drug mandatory minimums should be expanded to apply to all crimes with mandatory sentences
- 71% thought the current drug "safety valve" should be expanded to apply to receipt of child pornography crimes
It's a travesty of justice, right? Judges apparently think so.
Finally, the Commission asked the judges to pick the sentencing system that best achieves the purposes of punishment (rehabilitation, deterrence, public safety, and just punishment). A stunning 75% picked the current advisory guidelines system. Only 3% opted for the mandatory guidelines system that existed before Booker.
Perhaps those clamoring to return to the pre-Booker world should reconsider. We might have hundreds of upset judges to deal with if we did.