CHICAGO — IN May of 2002, a
23-year-old man named Michael Brandon Shuler was sentenced in federal court to
15 years in prison for illegally possessing a gun — something that even the
prosecutor acknowledged was a “rather benign act.”
Mr. Shuler’s lengthy sentence may
seem cruel, but sadly it wasn’t unusual. It came courtesy of the Armed Career
Criminal Act, a federal law that carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 15
years for people who possess a gun and have three prior convictions for certain
crimes. These crimes include drug offenses and “violent” crimes, a category
that encompasses a range of charges, such as breaking and entering, that may
involve no actual physical violence.
The latter situation was the
case with Mr. Shuler. At 18, having grown up in a poor Appalachian town in
Virginia and struggled with mental health problems, he broke into several
schools to steal prescriptions for pills to which he had become addicted. He
was arrested and convicted on charges of larceny and breaking and entering. The
sentencing judge described Mr. Shuler’s crimes as “nonviolent.” He served about
a year in jail.
Then, when Mr. Shuler was 22,
his mother died in a car accident, and he inherited from her a pistol and
shotgun. After he picked them up, he visited someone whose home was raided
(while Mr. Shuler was present) by members of the local Sheriff’s Department,
looking for drugs. They happened upon Mr. Shuler’s guns, and several months
later, Mr. Shuler was questioned by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives. He was eventually arrested and charged with violating the Armed
Career Criminal Act. Because his prior offenses counted as violent crimes under
the law, the judge had no option but to sentence him to 15 years.
We are accustomed to hearing
about exorbitant mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses, but similar
sentencing for gun possession is less frequently mentioned, though its effects
are often just as devastating, especially for poor people and people of color.
In fact, a black person is nearly twice as likely to face a mandatory minimum
carrying charge than a white person who is prosecuted for the same conduct.
When judges combine mandatory
sentences for relatively minor, nonviolent charges, people convicted of gun
possession offenses can receive prison terms lasting decades. In Texas in 2006,
DeJarion Echols, a young black college student with no prior convictions, was
sentenced to 20 years in federal prison: 10 years thanks to a mandatory minimum
for possession of a small amount of crack cocaine (40 grams); and 10 more years
thanks to a mandatory minimum for possession of a firearm in connection with a
drug-trafficking charge. “This is one of those situations where I’d like to see
a congressman sitting before me,” the sentencing judge said, in evident
frustration.
Federal law is not unique in
its use of minimum gun sentencing: Many states require mandatory sentences for
illegal firearm possession and possession of a firearm during a felony. In New
York, having an illegal firearm will get you at least three and a half years
behind bars; a similar penalty was recently deemed “cruel and unusual
punishment” when the Court of Appeal in Ontario, Canada, struck down three-year
mandatory sentences for illegal gun possession as unconstitutional.
Mandatory minimum gun laws have
historically been favored by gun control advocates and gun rights proponents
alike. Supporters insist that mandatory minimums diminish violence via
incapacitation (putting potential shooters in prison) and deterrence.
But there is no good evidence
that mandatory minimum gun laws actually have this effect. A recent report
issued by the Bluhm Legal Clinic of the Northwestern University Law School
concluded that “decades of empirical evidence and evaluations of specific state
experiences demonstrate that mandatory sentences will not reduce gun violence.”
Studies of the impact of such laws in Florida, Massachusetts, Virginia and
Michigan found no discernible effect on violent crime rates. In return for
issuing these sentences, society reaps only the heavy burdens that come with
lengthy incarceration, perhaps the least of which is higher costs to taxpayers.
Opposition to mandatory
sentencing for drug-related offenses is steadily growing. Now we must widen our
criticism to encompass mandatory minimums for firearms. These laws are not
reducing violence. They’re simply fueling a different kind of violence: the
banishment and isolation of large numbers of people, especially people of color
and poor people, tearing apart their lives, families and communities.
Maya Schenwar, the
executive director of Truthout, is the author of the forthcoming book “Locked
Down, Locked Out: Why Prison Doesn’t Work and How We Can Do Better.”
A version of this op-ed appears
in print on March 15, 2014, on page A21 of the New York edition with the
headline: Reduce Gun Penalties.
No comments:
Post a Comment