House passes mandatory minimum sentencing bill

Mandatory minimum sentences do not reduce crime and do not act as a deterrent for repeat offenders, statistics show.

The sentences also mean higher costs for state taxpayers at a time when Gov. Tom Wolf’s budget contains a $3 billion deficit.

Still, by a 122-67 vote and days of contentious back-and-forth, state House members this week passed a bill that would restore the ability of prosecutors to seek mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenders.

The state Supreme Court in 2015 declared much of the previous mandatory minimum law unconstitutional, while former President Barack Obama enacted measures that repealed such sentencing guidelines on the federal level.

“[The legislation] would … send more nonviolent offenders to prison, interfere with the judicial process and stick the increased costs on taxpayers,” said state Rep. Joanna McClinton, D-Philadelphia.

If the Senate also passes the bill and it becomes law, the state would be taking a step back in criminal justice, argued state Rep. Vanessa Lowry-Brown, D-Philadelphia.

“Mandatory minimum sentences drive up the cost of the system by imposing longer prison terms on more offenders, in many cases nonviolent offenders,” she said, adding, “Mandatory minimum sentences have swollen Pennsylvania’s prison population and they provide little enhancement to public safety.”

On Thursday, a spokesman for Wolf said the governor opposes the legislation.

“Gov. Wolf supports tough sentencing for violent criminals and believes public safety is the most important priority of any criminal justice system,” said Wolf spokesman J.J. Abbott.

“However, he agrees with [State Corrections Secretary] John Wetzel and many other criminal justice advocates, along with existing research and data, that mandatory minimums provide little enhancement to public safety, while ballooning the already escalating cost to taxpayers of our criminal justice system,” Abbott said.

“In this case, estimates suggest these mandatory minimums cost taxpayers as much as $85.5 million more per year. Gov. Wolf strong opposes this bill,” he said.

Mandatory minimum sentences are minimum terms of prison, defined in law that courts are required to impose on defendants convicted of certain crimes. It requires judges to treat all defendants the same, regardless of the facts of the case or the individual’s circumstances.

Prosecutors across the state have argued that mandatory minimums are needed because some judges are too lenient.

However, between 1980 and 1995 at the peak of the mandatory minimums era, violent crime rose 20 percent, said state Rep. Jordan Harris, D-Philadelphia.

The proposed law also silences the voices of the voters who elect judges and, what’s more, lawmakers who favor mandatory minimums have displayed an almost hypocritical approach to funding its high cost, he said.

“Apparently, many of those who voted for mandatory minimums don’t want to fund them,” Harris said, citing the fact that House Republicans also passed a budget this week that would cut $130 million more from the Department of Corrections than the governor’s budget would — even though the mandatory minimum bill would add another $66 million to $85 million per year in costs.

“For the same amount this bill would cost, we could provide drug treatment for more than 9,000 people,” Harris said.

A state Sentencing Commission analysis on the bill found a significant cost would come entirely from increased prison time for drug trafficking sentences with the potential for some added costs for the increase to penalties for impersonating an officer.

For example, beds needed to house those convicted of cocaine offenses would increase by 270 each year and cost more than $9.9 million, based on the analysis provided by Democrats.

Additionally, those guilty of heroin and other drug-related offenses under the bill would force an increase of 793 beds and $29.1 million more in costs; while marijuana offenders would force Corrections to add 78 beds at an annual cost of nearly $2.9 million.

More than 500 registered voters were polled for the survey last month by the U.S. Justice Action Network and the results revealed that just 17 percent of state voters believe the system is “working pretty well” as currently constituted, with 15 percent noting that a “complete overhaul” is due.

By an 85 to 11 percent margin, voters strongly supported a proposal to replace mandatory minimum sentences with sentencing ranges that allow judges to weigh the individual circumstance of each case, such as the seriousness of the offense and the offender’s criminal history.

“The pulse of the state is clear and that is that we should not be spending as much money as we are on locking people up, but that we should be creating pathways so that folks can reintegrate into our society and so that folks can be productive citizens,” Harris said.

McClinton said she recognizes that crime is a problem in Philadelphia and across the Commonwealth and there are many different ideas on the best ways to address that problem.

“There is no evidence that mandatory minimum sentences are effective at reducing these crimes and only handcuff our judicial system, without improving our neighborhoods and communities,” she said.