As a general rule, laws that require mandatory minimum sentences are a bad idea. Judges and prosecutors are selected to make tough decisions. Each case is different and we should expect them to exercise judgment. Mandatory minimum sentencing requirements take that crucial judgment away from court officials.
That alone is reason enough to oppose two bills that are being pushed by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and Chicago legislators. These bills (HB 2265 and SB 1003) will establish mandatory minimum sentences that require adding one to two years to a prison sentence for people convicted of unlawful use of a weapon.
Emmanuel’s complaint is that he doesn’t agree with the judgment of state’s attorneys and judges. Because of the crowded court docket, there is a push for plea agreements. Those agreements often entail reducing the sentences for unlawful use of a weapon. The result, Emmanuel claims, is that bad folks are being put back on the street earlier, increasing the problem of gun violence in Chicago.
The solution is a simple one: Enforce the laws that already exist. Instead, the proponents of these bills want to add more laws.
But the mandatory sentence requirement isn’t the answer.
The solution would be expensive. The Illinois Sentencing Policy Advising Council says the move would have added $400 million in increased prison costs during the past three years. The Department of Corrections said the bill would add nearly $1 billion to its costs. The actual cost is probably somewhere in the middle, but with the state’s financial situation, any additional cost is a problem.
People are also reading…
If passed, the bill would also add to the prison population, causing concern about prison overcrowding. The state is closing prisons. Laws that create more prisoners aren’t needed. Longer sentences are not necessarily a deterrent to people who break the law. Since the state doesn’t have any additional money to spend on programs to reduce recidivism, longer sentences will result in convicts who leave prison as better-trained criminals.
Also, unlawful use of a weapon charges can cover a broad range of offenses. The target of the legislation is hard-core criminals and gang members who use guns to commit violent crimes. But offenses could also snare law-abiding gun owners who simply make a mistake, such as failing to renew their FOID card in a timely manner.
Supporters of the legislation say that amendments to the bills would prevent those types of occurrences from happening. But the best way to prevent that from happening is to use the current system — and rely on the judgment of judges and other court officials.
The bill has easily passed a House committee and is awaiting action on the House floor. The bill is likely to succeed, primarily because it’s politically difficult to oppose a bill that appears to be tough on crime. Legislators are worried that a “no” vote would be used against them in an election.
But these two bills aren’t really tough on crime. They are tough on taxpayers, creating an expensive solution to a problem that could be solved with existing statues. Taking judgment away from prosecutors and judges is a bad idea.
