DEA Attorneys Share Strategies for Reducing Drug Sentences and Fines
Contents
- 1 DEA Attorneys Share Strategies for Reducing Drug Sentences and Fines
- 1.1 Seek Alternatives to Incarceration
- 1.2 Argue for Lower Sentencing Guidelines
- 1.3 Get Charges Reduced Through Plea Bargains
- 1.4 Challenge Constitutionality of Mandatory Minimums
- 1.5 Highlight Disparate Impact on Minorities
- 1.6 Appeal Excessive Fines
- 1.7 Advocate for Retroactive Application of Reforms
- 1.8 Conclusion
As DEA attorneys, we understand the devastating impact that long prison sentences and hefty fines can have on individuals convicted of drug offenses. While we have a duty to uphold the law, we also recognize that punishment should fit the crime. Excessive sentences often fail to rehabilitate offenders or make communities safer. That’s why we advocate for sensible reforms that reduce penalties for low-level drug crimes. Here we share effective strategies we’ve used to help clients avoid draconian sentences and crippling financial burdens.
Seek Alternatives to Incarceration
For nonviolent offenders, especially those struggling with addiction, prison may do more harm than good. We’ve had success persuading judges to order probation, treatment or community service instead of jail time. Halfway houses, inpatient rehab and counseling allow individuals to get their lives back on track while still facing consequences. Treatment-based alternatives to incarceration have been shown to reduce recidivism and promote rehabilitation. We make a compelling case that our client would benefit more from treatment than sitting idle behind bars.
Argue for Lower Sentencing Guidelines
Federal and state laws impose mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines for drug convictions. But within those parameters judges still have discretion. We scrutinize the facts to distinguish our case from more serious offenses. If, for example, our client possessed only a small quantity of drugs or played a minor role in a trafficking organization, we’ll advocate for a sentence on the lower end of the guidelines. Pointing out mitigating circumstances like minimal criminal history, family obligations, employment, and addiction can persuade judges to go easy on first-time and low-level offenders.
Get Charges Reduced Through Plea Bargains
An estimated 90-95% of criminal cases end in plea bargains rather than trials. We negotiate with prosecutors to reduce charges to less serious offenses in exchange for a guilty plea. For example, pleading to simple possession instead of possession with intent to distribute, or pleading down to a misdemeanor rather than a felony. This results in significantly lower sentencing exposure. Defendants avoid the time, cost, and gamble of a trial by agreeing to a lesser punishment upfront.
Challenge Constitutionality of Mandatory Minimums
Mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes often seem disproportionate to the offense. We raise constitutional challenges to these “one-size-fits-all” punishments. The 8th Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” We’ve argued that imposing a 5 or 10 year mandatory minimum on a low-level, nonviolent drug offender constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Some courts have ruled certain mandatory minimums unconstitutional when applied to specific defendants. Though not always successful, these arguments can persuade judges to issue lower sentences.
Highlight Disparate Impact on Minorities
The War on Drugs has disproportionately impacted communities of color. Black Americans are six times more likely than whites to be incarcerated for drug offenses despite equal rates of usage. We present data on racial disparities in sentencing to argue that a lengthy prison term will exacerbate existing inequities. Some judges factor this into sentencing decisions, issuing more lenient punishments to help rectify the imbalance. Reducing racial disparities in sentencing aligns with many judges’ notions of fairness and justice.
Appeal Excessive Fines
The Excessive Fines Clause of the 8th Amendment limits fines that are grossly disproportionate to the offense. Fines of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars often exceed a defendant’s ability to pay and ability to earn upon release from prison. We’ve succeeded in getting fines reduced by appealing to judges’ sense of fairness and mercy. We also argue fines should be based on an individualized assessment of a defendant’s financial means, not a blanket dollar amount tied to the quantity of drugs. Though not eliminated, fines can often be lowered to more reasonable amounts through these arguments.
Advocate for Retroactive Application of Reforms
Many sentencing reforms and reduced mandatory minimums are not applied retroactively. This means people serving harsh sentences under old laws don’t get relief. We advocate for applying reforms retroactively so that individuals already in prison can petition for resentencing and early release. For example, the First Step Act made retroactive a reform reducing the crack vs powder cocaine sentencing disparity. Over 2,000 inmates have had sentences reduced under retroactive application of this reform. We view retroactive application of sentencing reforms as an issue of basic fairness.
Conclusion
As DEA attorneys, we don’t compromise on prosecuting drug crimes. But we believe justice requires that the punishment fit the individual crime and circumstances. Excessive incarceration and financial penalties fail to deter crime or rehabilitate offenders. We’ll continue advocating for sensible reforms and using sound legal strategies to reduce draconian sentences. The opioid crisis has shown that we can’t incarcerate our way out of drug abuse. A more nuanced, treatment-based approach can help low-level offenders get back on their feet and become productive members of society.