BILL ANALYSIS �
AJR 47
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 24, 2014
Counsel: Shaun Naidu
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AJR 47 (Donnelly) - As Amended: June 5, 2014
SUMMARY : Urges the President and the Congress of the United
States to end mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug
offenses. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes the following legislative findings:
a) For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, federal trial
judges had broad, virtually unlimited sentencing
discretion;
b) The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 established the United
States Sentencing Commission and directed it to promulgate
sentencing guidelines that would regulate and govern a
sentencing court's discretion. In some cases, the act
eliminated the court's discretion entirely by requiring a
mandatory minimum sentence for certain types of crimes;
c) These mandatory sentences have led to some harsh results
because they do not take into account the facts of the
individual case;
d) There is currently bipartisan support for the removal of
mandatory minimum sentences in nonviolent drug crime cases;
e) United States Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky stated, "Our
county's mandatory minimum laws reflect a
Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all approach, which
undermines the Constitutional separation of powers,
violates our bedrock principle that people should be
treated as individuals, and costs the taxpayers money
without making them any safer";
f) Attorney General Eric Holder stated, "Too many Americans
go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no truly
good law enforcement reason";
AJR 47
Page 2
g) Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform stated, "the
benefits, if any, of mandatory minimum sentences do not
justify this burden to taxpayers. Illegal drug use rates
are relatively stable, not shrinking. It appears that
mandatory minimums have become a sort of poor man's
Prohibition; a grossly simplistic and ineffectual
government response to a problem that has been around
longer than our government itself. Viewed through the
skeptical eye I train on all other government programs, I
have concluded that mandatory minimum sentencing policies
are not worth the high cost to America's taxpayers";
h) Former federal prosecutors have testified that mandatory
minimum sentences do not accomplish the purpose of
identification of high-level drug organization leaders by
low-level offenders; and,
i) In addition, the longer term incarceration of federal
criminals has led to one-third of the budget of the United
States Department of Justice being spent operating prisons.
2)Urges the President and the Congress of the United States to
end mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Minimum
sentencing requirements are an outdated approach to addressing
drug violations. Our jails are too overcrowded to accommodate
people who have committed nothing more than a crime against
themselves. More often than not, jails have to release or
shift around higher level offenders because they do not have
the number of cells needed. AJR 47 will urge the Federal
Government to save space in jail for those who really belong
in there. Furthermore, arbitrary sentencing requirements for
a minor offense are not necessary for a situation where people
do no harm to others. Instead of sending drug offenders to
jail, we should look into addressing their issue as a medical
concern."
2)Drug Control through Criminal Penalties Generally : President
Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1971. California adopted the
AJR 47
Page 3
federal controlled schedules and set penalties based on the
federal schedules in 1972. Nixon established the Drug
Enforcement Administration in 1973. President Reagan signed
legislation establishing mandatory minimums for drug crimes in
1986 (see Comment 3). President George H.W. Bush appointed
the first drug czar in 1989. Inherent in these policies is a
belief that relatively severe penalties for drug crimes,
including drug possession, deter people from using or selling
drugs. (Timeline, America's War on Drugs, NPR, April 2, 2007;
Health & Saf. Code, �� 11054-11058, 11350-11383.7, 11351.5.)
Despite the country's efforts to combat drug crimes through
punitive sanctions, numerous studies have concluded that
criminal penalties have not substantially limited drug abuse,
but prohibition has generated substantial profits for illicit
trade. In June 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policy
released a report, "War on Drugs," examining global drug
policy over the past half century. The Commission is
comprised of current and former heads of state, public
officials, and experts.
The report states: "The global war on drugs has failed, with
devastating consequences for individuals and societies around
the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President
Nixon launched the US government's war on drugs, fundamental
reforms in national and global drug control policies are
urgently needed.
Vast expenditures on criminalization and repressive measures
directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal
drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or
consumption. Apparent victories in eliminating one source or
trafficking organization are negated almost instantly by the
emergence of other sources and traffickers. Repressive
efforts directed at consumers impede public health measures to
reduce HIV/AIDS, overdose fatalities and other harmful
consequences of drug use. Government expenditures on futile
supply reduction strategies and incarceration displace more
cost-effective and evidence-based investments in demand and
harm reduction." (Global Commission on Drug Policy, War on
Drugs (June 2011) [italics added].)
3)The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 : As explained by the U.S.
Sentencing Commission, "The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 [Pub.
AJR 47
Page 4
L. No. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207 (1986).] created the basic
framework of mandatory minimum penalties that currently apply
to federal drug trafficking offenses. The 1986 Act
established two tiers of mandatory prison terms for first-time
drug traffickers: a five-year and a ten-year minimum
sentence. Under the statute, these prison terms are triggered
exclusively by the quantity and type of drug involved in the
offense. For example, the ten-year penalty is triggered if
the offense involved at least one kilogram of heroin or five
kilograms of powdered cocaine or 50 grams of cocaine base.
Under the Act's approach, higher mandatory minimum penalties
can apply if the offender previously had been convicted of a
drug trafficking offense." (U.S. Sentencing Com., Report on
Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy <
http://www.ussc.gov/report-cocaine-and-federal-sentencing-polic
y-2> [as of Jun. 18, 2014].)
With respect to the legislative history surrounding mandatory
minimum punishments for drug crimes, the U.S. Sentencing
Commission states, "In tying mandatory minimum penalties to
the quantity of drug involved in trafficking offenses,
Congress apparently intended that these penalties most
typically would apply to discrete categories of traffickers -
specifically, "major" traffickers (ten-year minimum) and
"serious" traffickers (five-year minimum). In other words,
Congress had in mind a tough penalty scheme under which, to an
extent, drug quantity would serve as a proxy to identify those
traffickers of greatest concern. Senator Byrd, then the
Senate Minority Leader, summed up the intent during floor
debate:
For the kingpins - the masterminds who are really
running these operations - and they can be identified
by the amount of drugs with which they are involved -
we require a jail term upon conviction. If it is their
first conviction, the minimum term is 10 years ? Our
proposal would also provide mandatory minimum
penalties for the middle-level dealers as well. Those
criminals would also have to serve time in jail. The
minimum sentences would be slightly less than those
for the kingpins, but they nevertheless would have to
go to jail - a minimum of 5 years for the first
offense.
132 Cong. Rec. S. 14,300 (Sept. 30, 1986). See also 132 Cong.
AJR 47
Page 5
Rec. 22,993 (Oct. 11, 1986) (statement of Rep. LaFalce) ("the
bill... acknowledge[s] that there are differing degrees of
culpability in the drug world. Thus, separate penalties are
established for the biggest traffickers, with another set of
penalties for other serious drug pushers"); H.R. Rep. No.
9-845, 99th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1 at 11-17 (1986) (construing
penalty provisions of a comparable bill (H.R. 5394)
similarly)." (Id.) For a more detailed explanation of the
legislative history, please see the report.
4)Argument in Support : The Greater Sacramento Urban League
argues that "[m]andatory minimum sentencing requirements are
an outdated, one-size-fits all approach to addressing drug
violations that take away all judicial authority to consider
the specifics of an individual case. Although these drug
offenses are victimless crimes, we squander valuable jail
capacity to house individuals who have merely committed a
crime against themselves, often at the expense of releasing
high-level offenders.
"The effect of these policies cannot be overstated. Although
rates of drug use are stable and relatively equal across
demographics, minorities and other underserved individuals
bear the brunt of these policies. Mandatory minimums have
contributed to the overwhelming and disproportionate number of
minorities and underserved individuals who are arrested every
year; 62.9% of adults and 76.4% of juveniles in 2009, compared
to the 42.4% of the overall population that they represent.
"Furthermore, while former federal prosecutors have testified
that mandatory minimum sentences do not aid in the
identification of high-level drug organization leaders by
low-level offenders, mandatory minimum sentences have led to
nearly one-third of the Department of Justice's budget to be
spent on operating prisons."
5)Argument in Opposition : The California State Sheriffs'
Association states, "[w]e believe our communities will be
ill-served by the significant reduction of sentences for
federal drug trafficking crimes that involve the sale and
distribution of dangerous drugs like heroin, methamphetamine,
and PCP.
"It is important to note that existing law already provides
allowances for deserving defendants facing a mandatory minimum
AJR 47
Page 6
sentence. Often, they can plea bargain their way to a lesser
charge; such bargaining is overwhelmingly the way federal
cases are resolved. Even if convicted under a charge carrying
a mandatory minimum sentence, the judge on his or her own can
modify the sentence if the defendant has a minor criminal
history, has not engaged in violence, and cooperates with
federal authorities. This safety valve has been in the law
for almost 20 years. Additionally, under a separate provision
of law, a defendant can avoid a mandatory minimum sentence by
helping prosecutors bring his or her co-conspirators to
justice. Prosecutors correctly regard this as an essential
tool in encourage cooperation and, thus, breaking down drug
conspiracies, large criminal organizations, and violent
gangs."
6)Current Legislation :
a) AB 2492 (Jones-Sawyer) would repeal the minimum
mandatory punishment for specified drug offenses. AB 2492
is being heard by the Senate Committee on Public Safety on
the same day as this committee is hearing this bill.
b) SB 1010 (Mitchell) would equate the state punishment for
the possession for sale of cocaine base with that for the
possession for sale of cocaine hydrochloride powdered
cocaine. SB 1010 is awaiting a hearing in the Assembly
Committee on Appropriations.
7)Prior Legislation : AB 2515 (Donnelly), of this Legislative
Session, would repeal the minimum mandatory punishment for
specified drug offenses. AB 2515 failed passage on the
Assembly floor.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Greater Sacramento Urban League
Opposition
AJR 47
Page 7
California State Sheriffs' Association
Analysis Prepared by : Shaun Naidu / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744