Support the Holder Memo, Oppose the Holder Proposal

Confused? We can explain.

On Friday, we learned that the Justice Department is floating legislation to impose new, mandatory minimum sentences on cyber crimes. Let me repeat: the Holder Justice Department supports one-size-fits-all penalties for crimes involving breaches of the nation's critical infrastructure.

This news is still hot so we are still taking it in and will have more to say later. For now, however, we just have lots of questions. Where's the evidence that mandatory sentences are needed? What is the average penalty current offenders receive? Is there evidence to suggest that these sentences are too lenient? Are new penalties needed to deter cybercrimes? What is the recidivism rate? Were other, less costly alternatives to mandatory minimums considered?

We will push for answers to these questions, but you can put us in the "very skeptical" column. We can't imagine the federal code news more mandatory minimums or that the interests of justice demand them. Our skepticism toward the Holder DOJ's new proposal is rooted in arguments made quite effectively by Attorney General Holder himself.

Last year, the Attorney General released a memo providing guidance to U.S. Attorneys around the county about charging and plea decisions. In his memo, Mr. Holder wrote, "Equal justice depends on individualized justice, and smart law enforcement demands it." His memo was a stirring call for discretion for prosecutors and for judges.

It's too bad the new Holder proposal ignores the wisdom of last year's Holder memo. We stand with the old Holder.