April 5th, 2016
In 2010, a Massachusetts man named Imran Laltaprasad was shot multiple times, an incident that cost him his leg and resulted in ongoing health problems requiring multiple surgeries. His bad luck didn’t end there. A few years after that, police found a small amount of heroin and cocaine hidden in his prosthetic bag—five grams, or about the size of a sugar packet, ACLU Massachusetts points out.
Under Massachusetts’ mandatory minimum sentencing laws, Laltaprasad was supposed to serve a three-and-a-half-year sentence. But the judge in the case objected, noting the small amount of drugs and his health problems. She sentenced him to two-and-a-half years instead—still more than his original assailants got for shooting him.
On Tuesday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will hear oral arguments in Commonwealth v. Laltaprasad, a case that could encourage more judges to use common sense discretion in sentencing.
“In Mr. Laltaprasad’s case, the Supreme Judicial Court has an opportunity to inform courts and prosecutors across the state that the mandatory minimums statute does not tie judges’ hands in every case, or limit them to following prosecutors’ orders,” ACLU Massachusetts notes.
ACLU-Mass points out that judges already have a legal tool at their disposal to work around the harsh sentencing regime imposed by mandatory minimums.
“The safety valve established by the legislature in 1996 provides judges with a means to impose lighter sentences when circumstances and justice call for it,”ACLU-Mass notes. “A sentencing regime that provides no safety valve from harsh mandatory minimum drug sentences would raise serious constitutional concerns about cruel or unusual punishment, equal protection, and the separation of powers.”
For decades, mandatory minimum sentences—set by legislators, not judges—have been one of the drug war’s most horrendously efficient ways to funnel scores of non-violent drug offenders into America’s prisons.
Last week, President Obama commuted the sentences of 61 prisoners who were serving absurdly long sentences—including life in federal prison—for non-violent crimes. At the time, Families Against Mandatory Minimums applauded the president for the move, yet noted there was a lot more that could be done.
“We are deeply gratified that the president has used the power of the Oval Office to give relief to people serving unjust sentences, for low-level, nonviolent crimes. Unfortunately, clemency can’t change policy,” says FAMM President Julie Stewart. “Congress should be eliminating mandatory minimum sentences so that thousands more don’t serve excessive sentences that don’t make Americans safer.”