Trusting Judges -- and Questioning Life

Jose Antonia Acosta-Hernandez will spend the rest of his life in federal prison. The Mexican drug cartel “enforcer” was involved in – either by participating in or directing – the killing of over 1,500 people since 2008. After pleading guilty to racketeering, money laundering, drug trafficking, weapons and murder charges – 11 counts in all – Mr. Acosta-Hernandez was sentenced to seven concurrent life sentences, three more consecutive life sentences, and another 20 years in federal prison.

Needless to say, the judge who sentenced Mr. Acosta-Hernandez didn’t go soft on him. In fact, she gave him the maximum sentence allowed by the law for 10 of his 11 charges. She took into account the offenses and the offender and gave Mr. Acosta-Hernandez a stiff sentence, ensuring that he would spend the rest of his life in prison for his crimes.

This case is an unfortunate but important reminder that there are some scary people out there, some who are a serious danger to society and who need to be in prison to protect the public. However, the exceedingly severe sentence of life without parole – that is, to die in prison – should be reserved for those who are a serious threat to public safety, who have irreparably offended our sense of justice, who are beyond meaningful rehabilitation.

This case is also an important reminder that judges, like the one who sent Mr. Acosta-Hernandez to prison for the rest of his life (and then some), are in the best position to determine who belongs in prison and for how long. And they aren’t afraid to hand out a life sentence to those who really deserve it. Mandatory minimum prison sentences, on the other hand, get in the way of justice. They can force judges to send people to prison for a long time, even life, who don’t need to be there.

Stephanie George is currently serving a life sentence in federal prison for a nonviolent drug offense. Though Stephanie played a minor role in a crack cocaine conspiracy – “as a girlfriend and bag holder and money holder,” her sentencing judge said – her prior convictions for selling small amounts of crack a few years earlier mandated a life sentence. At sentencing, the mandatory minimum prohibited the judge from considering Stephanie’s minor role in the offense. Despite his objections, Stephanie’s judge was forced to send the 26 year-old mother of three to prison for life – longer than any of Stephanie’s five co-defendants.

And for Stephanie and the thousands serving life sentences in federal prison, life means life – there is no parole in the federal system. So despite reforming herself by participating in educational and vocational programs and working hard at her prison job, Stephanie will not get another chance.

Stephanie’s story should shock people. And it does – many don’t know that there are people serving life sentences for nonviolent drug offenses (or anything other than murder). Fewer know that in cases like Stephanie’s, the sentence is decided by a prosecutor who makes a charging decision, rather than the judge who does the sentencing.

The criminal justice system doesn’t need mandatory minimums to keep the public safe. Judges, when afforded flexibility and discretion, are capable of meting out justice, whether it is drug treatment for those who need it or life in prison for those who deserve it. 

Kate Taylor

Research Associate