Republicans in the General Assembly are again pushing for “mandatory minimum sentences” this year in hopes of reducing crime in Georgia.
Such laws require judges to impose minimum sentences and often prohibit suspended sentences or other commutations of sentences to deter criminal activity.
But Democratic lawmakers and independent experts question whether the mandatory minimum approach will solve the crime problem.
At the heart of the debate is whether tougher penalties really deter criminal activity, and if not, what does it do.
So far in this session, the state Senate has passed three bills imposing mandatory minimum penalties.
A proposal backed by Gov. Brian Kemp and backed by his parliamentary group leader Sen. Bo Hatchett, R-Cornelia, would have judges hand out prison sentences of at least five years for those convicted of gang recruiting activities and of 10 years for those convicted of hiring anyone under the age of 17.
A second law, supported by Republican Senator John Albers of Roswell, introduces a five-year minimum sentence for possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a domestic violence felony.
A third, sponsored by former police officer and Republican Cataula Senator Randy Robertson, makes pimping and pandering (sex buying) a crime and carries a mandatory minimum sentence of at least one year in most cases.
Robertson acknowledged that such “tough on crime” approaches had fallen out of favor while discussing his bill in the Senate this month.
“There are extreme examples of tougher penalties for all offenses across the country, and we’ve gone back and corrected that … and I would certainly hope our country learned from that,” Robertson said. But he maintained that tougher penalties, particularly for pimping and sex-buying, would deter crime.
“We have seen a rise in crime not seen in generations and it is time to turn the tide,” Albers said in support of Robertson’s measure. “If you vote ‘no’ to this bill, you’re saying, ‘I support the criminals.’ ”
However, Democrats largely oppose such measures.
Sen. Harold Jones II, D-Augusta, a former Richmond County Attorney General, argued that the Gang Recruitment Act could have the unintended consequence of reducing sentences for those guilty of serious crimes and those who who have been convicted of relatively minor crimes are severely punished.
A low-level gang member is unlikely to have useful information that would lead to the identification or conviction of a high-level gang member, Jones said during a Senate debate.
“The person who doesn’t know… she’s going to jail for five years [because] they can’t do it to anyone. … They have nothing to offer,” he said.
Criminal defense lawyers also consider the measures to be a wrong solution to the problem.
“The reality is that people don’t look to what the criminal code says to find the mandatory penalty and are discouraged by that penalty from pursuing the behavior they are going to pursue,” said Mazie Lynn Guertin, executive director of the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys , during a committee hearing.
Independent experts agree that such measures are unlikely to work.
“It’s one of those things that sounds good in theory, but there’s very little consistent evidence that there’s this beneficial effect,” said Daniel Mears, a distinguished research professor of criminology at Florida State University.
“It’s not a good betting option, and it’s certainly not one that you would pursue if you have an evidence-based policy.”
Mears said binding minimum laws could have a variety of undesirable consequences. They deprive the judges, who are supposedly the impartial arbiters of criminal cases, of their power. The measures can also increase the power of gangs inside prisons, which can then trickle back into life “outside”.
“After a certain sentence … there is no deterrent effect,” agreed Charles Katz, director of the Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety at Arizona State University.
“If you commit a gun-related crime, you deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But after a certain point, adding longer sentences – that’s all it takes.”
Katz said politicians are pursuing such tough anti-crime policies because they are “tugging at people’s emotions” despite the lack of evidence to support the measures.
Katz pointed to an approach called “lever pull” or targeted deterrence, which has strong evidence for it.
In this approach, police engage with a target audience, typically chronic offenders, explain how the criminal justice system will respond to their crimes, and offer resources such as housing or employment to address the root causes of crime.
The leverage approach is rated as promising by the federal government’s National Institute of Justice. The approach has worked in many communities, Katz said, and even wealthy Republican activist brothers Charles and David Koch have put their money behind the approach.
Georgia’s three anti-crime bills are now due to be reviewed by the House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee.
This story is available through a news partnership with the Capitol Beat News Service, a Georgia Press Educational Foundation project.
