Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Paul Ryan Backs Sentencing Reform As a Way of 'Expanding Opportunity in America'

Jacob Sullum | 7.24.2014 12:44 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
American Enterprise Institute

Today House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) unveiled proposals aimed at "Expanding Opportunity in America" that include "commonsense criminal-justice reform." Ryan, who is expected to seek the Republican presidential nomination, endorsed the Smarter Sentencing Act, which would allow currently incarcerated crack offenders to seek sentence reductions based on new penalties approved by Congress in 2010. The bill also would cut the mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses in half while loosening the criteria for the "safety valve" that allows low-level, nonviolent offenders to avoid mandatory minimums. "All we're saying is, [judges] don't have to give the maximum sentence every time," Ryan said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute. "There's no reason to lock someone up any longer than necessary."

Under current law, Ryan notes in the paper outlining his proposals, "a single gram of crack cocaine could be all that separates a convict from a less-than-five-year sentence and a 40-year sentence. Rigid and excessive mandatory sentences for low-level drug offenders, like these, may add to an already over-crowded prison system without appreciably enhancing public safety."

Ryan also endorsed the Public Safety Enhancement Act, which would let nonviolent offenders leave prison early if they complete evidence-based reintegration programs. "Here's the point," he said in his speech. "Nonviolent, low-risk offenders—don't lock them up and throw away the key. Get them in counseling; get them in job training; help them rejoin and contribute to our society."

Ryan told The Washington Post that anti-poverty activist Robert L. Woodson, president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, helped him see the light on sentencing reform. "I changed my mind on sentencing and prison reform," he said. "It just became clear to me that there are better ways for dealing with nonviolent criminals, [for] helping them get back on their feet, to pay their debt to society, and lead productive lives and be rehabilitated, than the current system we have today."

Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) welcomed Ryan's conversion. "Congressman Ryan is way ahead of the curve in recognizing the link between incarceration and generational poverty," said Molly Gill, FAMM's legislative liaison. "The reforms he endorsed today have helped dozens of states save money, restore families and communities, and keep crime rates low." She added: "At a time when the need for smarter sentencing practices is now universally accepted. It's no longer strange when Republicans and Democrats work together on this issue. It's strange when they don't."  

I'm not sure we can credit Ryan with being "way ahead of the curve" if he is backing sentencing reform "at a time when the need for smarter sentencing practices is now universally accepted." Republicans such as Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), Sen. Mike Lee (Utah), and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah)—all of whom have introduced reform bills—surely deserve more credit for sticking their necks out on this issue. Still, it is encouraging that Ryan has joined them, which should boost the prospects of passing a bill in the House. "Every serious GOP candidate for 2016 supports sentencing reform," former Reason writer Mike Riggs, now FAMM's communications director, observes on Twitter. "When are we going to learn where likely Democratic candidates stand?"

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Obama Campaign Vets to Young Lefties: Pay Us $5,000 and We'll Let You Do Our Grunt Work

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason.

PoliticsPolicyWar on DrugsSentencingCriminal JusticePaul RyanDrugs
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (29)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Almanian!   11 years ago

    SOFT. ON. CRIME.

    That is all.

    1. Anomalous   11 years ago

      Better to have a hard-on for criminals?

  2. SugarFree   11 years ago

    "I'm sure this is just some sort of racist trick."

    -Slate

    1. Brett L   11 years ago

      "Why this is really just a racist trick"
      -Vox

      1. Carl ?s his ? for ?s   11 years ago

        "Top 10 reasons this is a racist trick, in GIFs"
        -BuzzFeed

        "This weird racist trick will get you elected"
        -Taboola

      2. SugarFree   11 years ago

        "You'll Surprised By This One Racist Trick"

        -Upworthy

    2. Warty   11 years ago

      "The secretive libertarian billionaires backing this racist trick"

      -Salon

  3. Old Man With Candy   11 years ago

    "There's no reason to lock someone up any longer than necessary."

    For drug crimes, when is it EVER necessary?

    1. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

      When they say they're selling you one thing and it's really something else that kills you.

      1. Brett L   11 years ago

        Fraud. Okay.

    2. thom   11 years ago

      It isn't. At worst the penalty for possessing drugs should be that they take your drugs away.

      1. anon   11 years ago

        At worst the penalty for possessing drugs should be that they take your drugs away.

        Only if they reimburse me for them.

    3. alan_s   11 years ago

      That's the part that gets me. I have a hard time praising this stuff as any sort of a victory at all. It's like we're just accepting this premise that they should be in jail at all. Even though that's not what we're doing, that's how everyone else is gonna see it. They'll see it as though they're drug "criminals" a kind favor by only locking them in a cage for 15 years instead of 17 years.

      1. alan_s   11 years ago

        Ugh,
        *they're doing drug "criminals" a kind favor

  4. SugarFree   11 years ago

    OT: We can take it because all that extra money isn't making them happy anyway.

    1. Carl ?s his ? for ?s   11 years ago

      I love this from the sidebar: Pouty Husband Sends Wife Spreadsheet Detailing Sex-Life Dissatisfaction

      1. SugarFree   11 years ago

        Quite a few sites have been going crazy Broadway-style over that story. It's like the couple is trying to out-passive-aggressive each other.

        1. Carl ?s his ? for ?s   11 years ago

          Seriously.

          Stop being so immature and passive-aggressive, or I'll talk about you on reddit!!!

      2. Calidissident   11 years ago

        I saw that when it first popped up on reddit. Lmao

      3. Warty   11 years ago

        If ever two people deserved each other. Jesus christ, you don't even have any kids and you hate each other, just cut your losses and get a divorce already. Idiots.

  5. Carl ?s his ? for ?s   11 years ago

    Look at the responses to the Riggs tweet linked above. "Bobby News" is unhinged.

    1. SugarFree   11 years ago

      Reason is like catnip for the unhinged.

      1. ?nus   11 years ago

        Do tell.

    2. Warty   11 years ago

      Bobby News ?@bobbybnews 3h
      @MikeRiggs @nickgillespie If Veterans would go back to Bush, look at the news back then until now, you will learn the truth. Information ava

      Information...java? guava? lava?

      1. Brett L   11 years ago

        Someone cant count to 140

    3. MJGreen   11 years ago

      Hahaha, I love that everyone else completely ignores him, continuing their conversation around his tweets.

  6. MJGreen   11 years ago

    Did Senator Obama do anything like this? This is an instance where a libertarian or progressive who hates Ryan can say, "Well, at least he introduced this when he was in the Senate. That's not nothing." Obama pretty much just voted safely or abstained, and didn't introduce anything, right?

  7. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

    Obama will start issuing those commutations any time, right? I mean, he Doesn't Have to Wait for Congress to Act (TM).

    Unless Congress is covering his butt and relieving him of the political responsibility of tough choices.

    1. kbolino   11 years ago

      Haven't you heard? Obama is exempt from any responsibility for commuting drug sentences because Rand Paul hasn't proposed a bill to do it.

      Even though Obama, as President of the entire United States, can issue pardons unilaterally with immediate effect and no oversight or restriction, he shouldn't be criticized because Paul, as one Senator out of 100, representing one state out of 50, hasn't proposed a bill, gotten it through committee, gotten it passed in both houses, and then signed by the President, only to take effect when the President felt like implementing it.

      That is the totally fair and completely unbiased standard that we are supposed to apply to this situation, at least according to certain individuals the last time this point was brought up.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

The Supreme Court Said States Can't Discriminate in Alcohol Sales. They're Doing It Anyway.

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 5.24.2025 7:00 AM

Cocaine Hippos, Monkey Copyrights, and a Horse Named Justice: The Debate Over Animal Personhood

C.J. Ciaramella | From the June 2025 issue

Harvard's Best Protection Is To Get Off the Federal Teat

Autumn Billings | 5.23.2025 6:16 PM

Trump's Mass Cancellation of Student Visas Illustrates the Lawlessness of His Immigration Crackdown

Jacob Sullum | 5.23.2025 5:30 PM

Come July, Keys Will Be De Facto Illegal In Minnesota

Christian Britschgi | 5.23.2025 5:00 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!