Let's fight crime with our heads, not our hearts

Why Gov. Jeff Landry's proposals to increase prison time won't work

Photo by Ayrus Hill on Unsplash

Among the many proposals that Louisiana lawmakers will consider in the special legislative session later this month is ending sentence reduction for good behavior. In other words, Gov. Jeff Landry wants to keep people in prison much longer in the belief that this will make our streets safer.

I know it makes some voters feel good to see politicians get tough on people convicted of crimes, especially violent ones. And no one I know believes that people who commit violent acts should not be incarcerated. But if we’re going to get tougher on crime, to reduce crime, shouldn’t we get tough in ways that work?

If the goal is to create safer communities, shouldn’t we ensure our actions are effective? And shouldn’t we make sure we’re not making the problem worse?

First, here’s what Landry proposes for the upcoming “crime session,” according to the Louisiana Illuminator:

The greatest number of items on the governor’s call involve matters dealing with parole and the ability of incarcerated persons to reduce or seek relief after conviction. The first is by far the broadest – “to restrict parole eligibility” – and gives lawmakers significant leeway to limit ways people can reduce their time in prison.

More specifically, the call instructs the Legislature “to restrict or repeal the earning rate of good time, or the diminution of sentence for good behavior, and earned compliance credits.” Members are also asked “to expand the criteria for which probation and parole may be revoked for technical violations.

The end result would keep people in prison longer, in direct contrast to Edwards’ efforts to place the incarcerated back in the community once they met the obligations of their sentence.

So, what do the research and the best minds say about the effectiveness of long, unforgiving prison sentences?

Consider a 2023 report by the Task Force on Long Sentences, chaired by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former Republican U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina. Gowdy was chair of the House Oversight Committee. Yates served under President Barack Obama. Neither has a reputation for being soft on crime.

The task force also included “16 subject-matter experts from across the country with differing views on the justice system and different life experiences — former prosecutors and current public defenders, law professors, judges, law enforcement officers, victims and survivors of crime, individuals who served long sentences, legislators, and corrections officials.” Among them was former Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Bernette Joshua Johnson.

According to its report published in March 2023, the group “debated and wrestled with difficult legal, policy, and moral issues for a year in an effort to reach consensus on recommendations.” Among its conclusions:

There is a large body of research on mandatory minimum sentencing. Although studies do not generally focus specifically on long sentences, overall findings indicate that mandatory minimums do not work as intended. Decades of evaluations show that mandatory minimums fail to produce significant deterrent effects, are associated with increased racial disparities in sentencing, and can lead to the application of unduly harsh sentences in cases with compelling mitigating factors. [emphasis mine]

The reason for the disconnect between the intention and outcomes of mandatory minimums is that such penalties are based on a flawed assumption--that requiring judges to impose minimum prison terms for certain crimes will remove discretion from sentencing. In practice, however, that discretion, along with the associated problems described above, is transferred from judges to other criminal justice actors, especially prosecutors.

In other words, the report states, “Research shows that prosecutors tend to use the prospect of charging people with long mandatory minimum sentences to incentivize them to plead guilty to offenses with shorter sentences.”

It always comes back to race, doesn’t it?

The task force also found that the race of the accused too often influences long sentences:

The data are clear about the presence of disparities in long sentences: There are stark racial and ethnic differences in the shares of people who are sentenced to and serving 10 years or more in prison, especially when comparing Black people to White people. For instance, in an examination of data collected from all states and the Bureau of Prisons in 2020, The Sentencing Project found that 46% of the total number of people serving life or sentences of 50 years or more were Black.

Among its many recommendations, the task force suggests decoupling “drug quantity from sentence lengths and restricting the use of long sentences in cases that stem from symptoms of substance use and mental health disorder.”

After it analyzed state prison populations, the task force also found that “18% of people in 2020 admitted to prison with a long sentence were convicted of drug-related crimes, including possession, distribution, and trafficking.” However, it noted that research suggests that long prison sentences have “no statistically significant relationship between state drug imprisonment rates and three indicators of state drug problems: self-reported drug use, drug overdose deaths, and drug arrests.”

Instead, it is community-based treatment models that lead to better outcomes for those with substance use disorder and co-occurring severe mental health disorders.

As Vera — a national prison sentencing reform organization with offices in four cities, including in New Orleans — explains:

A tiny fraction of people commit the majority of violent crimes in the United States—according to the data, 1 to 5 percent of people engaged in unlawful behavior commit 50 to 75 percent of all violent crimes. Sentences to jail and prison for incapacitation should be reserved for that small sliver of people who have repeatedly seriously harmed others. . . . Aside from this small group, there is little evidence that people who are convicted of a violent crime actually “specialize” in violence.

For most violent acts, although the violence creates real harm and needs to be repaired, it does not create an ongoing safety crisis that must be addressed with ever-increasing amounts of incarceration. Indeed, people age out of engaging in violent crime at earlier ages—with peak arrests occurring from ages 18 to 20 and falling steeply thereafter— than they do with drug and property crimes, for which people are much more likely to engage in repeat behavior. Sentencing a person who engages in an act of violence compelled by moments of conflict or a specific circumstance to a lengthy term of incarceration does not further public safety because such behavior is not endemic to that person, it is a result of that circumstance and is unlikely to recur. [emphasis mine]

I recommend reading Vera’s report, “A New Paradigm for Sentencing in the United States.” Share it with your friends, especially those who think longer prison sentences are effective. It might open their eyes.

Let’s make policy with our heads, not our hearts