A group of House Democrats blasted legislation signed into law last month by President Obama, saying it will expand Drug War-style punishments for low-level criminals.
The lawmakers criticized the measure for exposing more people to mandatory minimum sentences, while “lowering the intent requirement” needed to prove a defendant conspired to import drugs into the United States.
Before the Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2015 (TDTA) was signed into law, prosecutors had to demonstrate that the accused knew the drugs were destined for the US.
“We have long-opposed the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences because of their extraordinary injustice, role in causing prison overcrowding, and the excessive costs to taxpayers they cause,” the representatives wrote.
Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Cedric Richmond (D-La.), Hakeem Jefferies (D-N.Y.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.) endorsed the statement.
It was made Friday in a House Judiciary Committee report on a version of the TDTA approved in April by the committee. A word-for-word Senate version of that bill was signed into law by President Obama on May 16.
According to the dissenting Democrats, this will lead to disproportionate penalties meted out on low level actors.
These punishments and Drug War-era practices, generally, have received increased scrutiny in the past few years, for their impact on communities of color. In August 2014, the Black Lives Matter movement began receiving nationwide attention, after the killing of Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferugson, Mo.
The anti-TDTA Democratic lawmakers noted Friday that mandatory minimums are often applied without regard to power; without accounting for an individual’s “function in a drug organization.”
“This unwarranted uniformity means that a drug ‘mule’ carrying a backpack filled with drugs on several occasions, for relatively small amounts of remuneration, may potentially be subject to the same sentence as a drug kingpin, who arranges the trips and reaps enormous profits,” they wrote in the committee report.
In the case of the TDTA, this could apply to those ferrying drugs from one foreign country to another, without any knowledge that the narcotics are destined for the United States—or without any knowledge that they are even carrying illicit material.
The legislators noted that they attempted to limit the intent provision, in a “reasonable compromise,” to leaders or organizers of drug rings involving five or more people. The committee rejected that proposal, through an amendment offered by Conyers, in a 16-6 vote.
Ironically, a right-wing push to more vigorously enforce general “criminal intent” provisions is stalling sentencing reform. Both the Senate and House Judiciary committees last year passed reductions to some federal mandatory minimums, in a watershed moment for the War on Drugs. House Republicans, however, are insisting that the package include changes to rules governing mens rea principles.
The move would limit federal criminal prosecutions to those who intended to commit the acts they stand accused of—a development that could give significant cover to corporate negligence. The Heritage Foundation, the Koch Bros., and Grover Norquist, are among the influential figures and organizations on the right who favor holding up criminal justice reform until Democrats agree to the changes.
Notably, the TDTA passed through every stage of the legislative process in the 114th Congress without there being a single recorded vote.
Supporters of the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee before its voice vote last September noted that the measure had passed the upper house twice before. Committee member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the legislation’s primary sponsor, said the bill is needed to disrupt the meth supply chain in China and Mexico.
