Yang and Wales: on mandatory minimums

Scott Wales and Kashoua "Kristy" Yang are competing for the Branch 47 judicial seat now held by Milwaukee County Circuit Judge John Siefert, who is not seeking re-election. This is the only contested Milwaukee County judicial race this year. Wales and Yang agreed to answer a series of questions from WJI to better inform voters about issues in the race.

This week's question: Do you think mandatory minimum sentences are appropriate? If not, why not? If so, why and under what circumstances?

Scott Wales

Historically, mandatory minimum sentences have been around since 1790.   However, the current problems pertaining to mandatory minimum sentences began in the 1980s when Congress enacted the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (i.e. which has since been followed either directly or in part by all 50 states).  This Act established the framework for mandatory minimum penalties applicable to federal drug trafficking offenses where penalties range from no less than five years in prison to life.  This legislation was in response to a number of circumstances including the increased incidents of drug use and trafficking, the national sense of urgency surrounding drugs, and crack cocaine specifically.  Similarly, Congress has enacted mandatory minimum penalties to combat child sexual exploitation.  By 1996, penalties for production of child pornography now require a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for first-time offenders, 15 years for offenders with a prior child sexual exploitation conviction, and at least 30 years for offenders with two prior convictions.
                      
Based upon the wide-ranging focus of Congress several notable outcomes are in place. Judges have less discretion in implementing the length of the appropriate punishment and have fewer tools to address the rehabilitative needs of the offender (i.e. who upon release will eventually return to his/her family and community).  Moreover, while this “one-size-fits-all” approach to sentencing seems like a responsible solution for imposing punishment, it raises the ultimate question of whether it undermines justice by statutorily precluding judges from implementing individualized punishment based upon an assessment of all aggravating and mitigating circumstances.  Furthermore, the data derived from the past 30 years, especially in drug possession cases, overwhelmingly confirms that federal and state prison populations have soared leading to overcrowding which in turn has resulted in exorbitant costs to taxpayers along with an unexpected diversion of funds from law enforcement that is better utilized for more serious matters.
                                   
In closing, the argument exists that some mandatory minimum sentences are the product of good legislative intentions; however, good intentions alone do not always translate into good policy.  Rather, good results are needed especially in low-income populations of color who are most affected.  Remarkably, there is now growing recognition from public officials on both sides of the aisle for bipartisan support to amend components of mandatory minimum sentencing laws. However, before reform can be implemented Congress must first ask whether justice is best-served by maintaining status quo legislation which imposes fixed penalties to a particular crime, or whether judges should have actual discretion to impose sentences that address the aggravating and mitigating facts of each case.

Scott Wales has almost 30 years of experience and specializes in criminal law.  He also is Fox Point Municipal judge, a post he has held for more than eight years.

http://www.walesforjudge.com/

Kashoua "Kristy" Yang

State legislatures and the Congress have grappled with the fair application of mandatory minimum sentencing guideline for decades. This concept of application of a society’s laws goes back centuries, and it is still largely a systemic failure despite the best intentions of many people over the years.
 
Mandatory minimums may have the unintended consequence of the District Attorney’s office having a greater say in sentencing because the District Attorney’s office determines the charges to file.  While the types of crimes that fall into the mandatory minimum guidelines are much more narrowly defined today, state legislatures continue to revisit the issue often, likely more out of political posturing than a complete understanding of how our judicial system should work. 
 
Governor Scott Walker signed a mandatory minimum law in December of 2015 that imposes minimum sentencing to convicted violent offenders who illegally possesses a firearm.  Despite good intentions of both the state legislature and the Governor, it is questionable whether such law will keep our neighborhoods safe. 
 
We know further that recidivism isn’t reduced because of mandatory minimum guidelines. What we do know is prisoners are less likely to reoffend if they have a supportive environment waiting for them after incarcerations. Particularly in drug cases, these guidelines have swelled our prison population with nonviolent criminals.
 
It would be agreeable to many that the punishment should fit the crime. It easy to talk tough on crime but much harder to apply that standard fairly.  A knowledgeable judge’s interpretation of the law and sentencing decisions should be respected. If for any reason a judge makes an erroneous decision, or one that includes bias, it can be appealed.

Kristy Yang is the owner of Kashoua Yang, LLC, a law firm that concentrates on family law, family mediation, worker’s compensation, and social security disability. Yang was  selected as  a Super Lawyer Rising Star for the years 2013-2016.

https://www.yangforjudge.org/​