From: remartin@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (R. Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.hemp,alt.drugs
Subject: Mandatory Minimum Article
Date: 25 Feb 1995 23:19:21 -0600
Message-ID: <3ip30p$31lc@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>

Please write to Tom Schoenberg and thank him for an informed
and accurate article about mandatory-minimum sentences.  We
need to support those who support us.

Tom Schoenberg
Daily Iowan
111 Communications Center
Iowa City, IA  52242


Prison System Clogged By Mandatory Terms
By: Tom Schoenberg
The Daily Iowan
Friday, February 24, 1995

     Mandatory minimum jail sentences were intended to sweep
the streets clean of drugs by eliminating parole for drug
dealers.  Instead, the sentences have led to the jailing of
first-time offenders and the premature release of high-risk
criminals.
     Violent criminals - including rapists and armed robbers
- are back on the streets because Iowa prisons have become
alarmingly overcrowded due to mandatory-minimum sentences,
which keep low-risk drug offenders in jail and exempt them
from parole, said one warden.
     "If we keep lower-risk people in the system, then more
higher-risk offenders will be released, which actually
decreases public safety," said Larry Hardy, executive warden
of the Iowa Medical and Classification Center at Oakdale.
     Mandatory-minimum sentences are determined by the crime
instead of a judge.  For example, a person convicted in Iowa
of a felony drug charge is not eligible for parole until
they serve one-third of their sentence.
     When determining which offenders to release early, the
Iowa Board of Parole uses a risk-assessment model which
examines an inmate's criminal history, psychological
evaluation and their behavior while in jail to decide
whether they are low-, moderate-, or high-risk offenders.
     Inmates requesting parole are assigned a risk-
assessment number based on their evaluation - one being the
lowest risk and nine being the highest risk.
     "Even if an offender is well-behaved in prison and has
a low-risk score, he/she cannot be released until the
mandatory (sentence) has expired if they were convicted of
one of the offenses," Hardy said.  "On the other hand,
offenders without mandatories may be released earlier - even
if they have a higher-risk score - and in fact often are
because of the population pressures which force the parole
board to release large numbers of inmates each month."
     In July, August and September, Hardy recorded 144 early
releases of high-risk criminals.  Some of the released
inmates were serving time for sex abuse, incest, arson,
burglary, and weapons offenses.
     Of the 144 high-risk criminals Hardy paroled between
July and September, Hardy said all had been assigned a risk
rating of eight or nine.
     Despite the release of so many high-risk inmates, Hardy
said 202 low-risk offenders remained in prison because of
mandatory-minimum sentences.
     During the Reagan years when the "war on drugs" became
one of the nation's top priorities, mandatory-minimum
sentences answered the American public's outcry for tougher
penalties for drug dealers.
     The sentences were first addressed at the federal level
with the Crime Control Act of 1984.  Now, nearly every state
- including Iowa - has adopted a version of mandatory-
minimum sentences, especially for drug offenders.
     Iowa's prison system is presently designed to house
3603 inmates, but the influx of jailed criminals has swelled
the system to 5400 inmates - 50 percent above capacity.
     As drug offenders flood Iowa's prison system, the
state's parole board has been forced to release other
inmates to clear room for convicted drug dealers and users.
     On November 17, Hardy testified before Iowa's
Sentencing Study Committee and released the information
documenting the 144 high-risk offenders who had been
released.
     "The committee voted unanimously to end mandatory
minimums on drug offenders in Iowa," he said.
     "However, nothing will happen with the report until
some legislator turns it into a bill and brings it to a
debate."
     Members of the Iowa Judiciary Committee said they are
familiar with the negative effects of mandatory-minimum
sentences for drug offenders.  But they said lengthy debates
over issues like the death penalty have prevented them from
discussing the sentencing.
     "I do believe in mandatory-minimums," Rep. Jeff
Lamberti, R-Andeny, said.  "I just think you have to be
careful where you apply them.  A lot of drug offenders can
be appropriately dealt with through alternative matters and
not at the expense of releasing other violent offenders."
     The problem with mandatory-minimum sentences is that
the courts don't consider a person's criminal history when
sentencing, Hardy said.
     "The crime of conviction is not adequate for
identifying early release candidates," he said.  "The fact
is that future threat to the community lies more in the
personality and pathology of the offender than in the crime
of conviction."
     The judiciary Committee has been considering
alternative measures which would keep violent criminals in
prison, said Rep. Charles Hurley, R-Fayette, chairman of the
Judiciary Committee.
     "We've been working on a bill which would prevent
repeat violent offenders from being paroled every month,"
Hurley said.  "We're also looking into building more prison
space and the revamping of mandatory-minimum sentencing."
     However, Rep. Don Schultz, D-Waterloo, said mandatory-
minimum sentences are an ineffective punishment for drug
offenders.
     "It is a problem, and I know society wants to stop the
trafficking of drugs.  But I must admit, we have been
unsuccessful at doing so, and I don't think mandatory
minimums help either," Schultz siad.  "The move is to be
harsher and pretend we've done something, but I don't think
it's supported by looking at the results."