The judge who says he's part of the gravest injustice in America
The judge who says he's part of the gravest injustice in America
Sioux City, Iowa (CNN)Susan Rice lifts her hands to her face. She pushes aside her gray hair and wipes away tears.
She
turns to her family, sitting behind her in a federal court, and mouths
"I love you." It may be a while before they're all together again.
Rice
turns back to face Judge Mark Bennett as he enters. The federal
courtroom is silent except for the clang of shackles on Rice's wrists
and ankles and her muffled sobs.
Her
emotion is perhaps unsurprising. The grandmother of three faces between
five and 40 years in prison for conspiracy to distribute 5 or more
grams of methamphetamine. That's the size of a packet of sugar.
What
is surprising -- almost stunning -- is the emotion coming from the
bench. Bennett is about to sentence Rice for a crime that she admits
committing, one for which she believes she deserves punishment. It's the
severity of the punishment that has her and her family flabbergasted --
and the judge frustrated.
Bennett
seems exasperated, exhausted almost, as he explains he must sentence
Rice to a full five years -- the mandatory minimum required by law. It
is a sentence he deems unjust, too much for a low-level addict, just for
being caught with a certain weight of drugs.
Bennett
makes sure the record reflects he felt strongly enough to request that
Iowa's US Attorney consider waiving the mandatory minimum. He accepts
the defense mitigation that Rice had never been in trouble before she
was in her 50s, when she began drinking heavily after a bad divorce and
was introduced to meth.
She met a mid-level dealer who offered her a mattress in his basement and free meth if she would drive him around.
A
willing drug mule to feed her addiction? Yes. But not the drug
trafficker or conspirator whom the charges and mandatory minimum
sentences were designed to target, the judge believed.
His plea fell on deaf ears. He was told there was no option for Rice to be treated as an exception to the law.
"I strongly disagree with that decision," the judge says firmly from the bench.
It
is not the first time he has felt this way. Bennett says 80% of the
mandatory sentences he hands down are unjust -- but that he is
handcuffed by the law, which leaves no room for judicial discretion to
consider a sentence based on individual circumstances of the defendant.
Too
often, Bennett says, low-level nonviolent drug addicts dealing to feed
their habit end up being sentenced like drug kingpins.
Bennett
says if he had the power, he would jail Rice for perhaps a year, or 18
months. Across the street in a state courthouse, she would have been put
on probation, he says.
"I
think it's a miscarriage of justice," Bennett says. "But you know
people are entitled to their own sense of what justice is."
In the courtroom, the judge lowers his head and his voice.
"With the greatest of reluctance, I sentence you to 60 months," he says.
Judge carries burden of his sentences
Before
Susan Rice even began using methamphetamine, doling out these mandatory
minimum sentences was already weighing heavily on Bennett's shoulders.
As the number of cases he disagreed with grew during his nearly 23 years
on the bench, so did his frustration.
He's
watched a stream of what he considers low-level offenders going through
the courts turn into a flood. It repeated across the country,
overwhelming federal prisons to the extent that half of inmates were
serving time for drug offenses.
Bennett
hoped the tide was turning after members of both parties began pushing
for sentencing reform on both state and federal levels, arguing it had been a huge mistake.
Now Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump's attorney general, has instructed that the law governing mandatory minimums be enforced with renewed vigor.
"If
you are a drug trafficker," Sessions said after issuing his memo to
prosecutors, "we will not look the other way. We will not be willfully
blind to your misconduct."
Bennett
thinks this approach is unjust. "I basically couldn't live with myself
if I didn't speak out," he says, standing in the center of his courtroom
only hours after sentencing Rice. "I'm compelled to talk about it
because I think it's one of the gravest injustices in the history of
America."
Year after year, giving out those sentences, is wearing on him.
"The
burden of having given so many unjust sentences is a very heavy thing
for me to carry around," Bennett says beginning to choke up.
"I
do not consider myself soft on crime, but I consider myself opposed to
mandatory minimums for low level non-violent drug dealers who are
basically addicts," he says.
he
mandatory minimum sentences affecting today's offenders stem from the
mid-1980s crack epidemic and a desire to punish drug traffickers. The
statutes were amended to include virtually all those involved in a drug
enterprise, but a key clause was added: if an offender helped
investigate or prosecute others, he or she could get a lower sentence.
President
Obama's first attorney general, Eric Holder, issued new guidelines for
prosecutors to pick their charges carefully and not slap nonviolent or
first-time offenders with the kind of offenses that would trigger
mandatory minimums. It was part of the administration's bid to cut the
prison population and support treatment, not incarceration, for those
who were criminal only because of their addiction.
The
National Association of Assistant US Attorneys, made up of those who
prosecute federal cases, supports Sessions' push to charge the most
serious crime that is provable.
"It's
an effective way of protecting the public and it has served us well for
an awful long time," the group's president Larry Leiser says. "People
who were eligible for mandatory minimums are truly people who are
involved in significant quantities of these very dangerous substances."
He rejects recent efforts to relax sentencing laws.
And he rejects the view the law unfairly catches non-violent addicts
who are simply feeding their addiction by selling drugs. And he hails
the provision that lets offenders help themselves to lower sentences if
they in turn help the authorities take serious criminals off the
streets.
She says her sentence did not fit her crime
But that reasoning has a fatal flaw for Mandy Martinson, who had to live with the consequences of the law.
She
was arrested with her drug dealer boyfriend and sentenced for the pound
of meth and a firearm found with them. She'd been dating him for only
about a month but let him and his drugs move in with her, in return for a
steady supply.
She got the mandatory minimum of 15 years in federal prison. He did not.
"He
got 12 years because he had more information to share ... when you have
more information to share, you have more to bargain with." Martinson
says. "I had only known him five weeks, I didn't have any information to
bargain with."
Like
Rice, Martinson is clear-eyed about what she did. She regrets turning
to a drug dealer for comfort, and drugs, in reaction to a previous
abusive relationship. She didn't know that dealer was under
investigation, and had been for two years.
"I do believe I should have went to prison to serve my time for breaking the law," Martinson says.
But
Martinson takes issue with the conspiracy charge that she says held her
accountable for everything her then-boyfriend had done before they even
met. She was sentenced as if she were a drug dealer -- a sentence that
does not fit the crime she admits to committing, she said.
She
wasn't sentenced by Bennett, but by another man who also thought her
sentence unfair, she said. Judge James Gritzner agreed she was no
kingpin, but felt he had no choice but to sentence her using laws
intended for one, according to court documents.
By
the time of her sentencing, Martinson was clean, had returned to work
and was in the throes of fixing her life. Gritzner acknowledged he
believed Martinson posed little threat in the future. Given the choice,
he would have imprisoned her for 7.5 to 10 years. But he did not have
that choice.
Still, Martinson took comfort -- a judge believed in her.
Once
in prison she met another. Bennett has been visiting prisoners for
years, including some he's sentenced and some he has not, to see how
they struggle with the long, mandatory terms, but also how they try to
turn their lives around -- often becoming rehabilitated long before they
are set to be released, he says.
Listening to Bennett gave Martinson another sign she had not been treated fairly.
"I
thought, 'Well, there's two judges that I've heard directly out of
their mouths say they're against mandatory minimum sentencing,'"
Martinson remembers thinking while hearing Bennett in prison. "I
thought, 'why doesn't it change?"
She filed appeal after appeal against the length of her sentence.
And then a third, very important man came out on her side.
Martinson
is grateful to be free now but will forever mourn the years lost to a
longer sentence -- the prime years of her life when she planned to
settle down and have a family. It took away from her being able to care
for her mother, Cindy, who got cancer during Martinson's ninth year in
prison.
She
can't help but think that if the judge could have given her the lesser
sentence he thought was proper, she could have cared for her mother in
her last few months at their home in Mason City, Iowa.
Instead,
in the months before her mother died, Martinson got just four hours
with her. She was not allowed to attend the funeral.
Today,
she is still grateful to be out, to be sitting in the family home. And
she is happy to add her voice to the variety of people making arguments
against mandatory minimum sentences and the push to have Congress change
the law.
Those now include more than a dozen state attorneys general who sent Sessions a letter asking him to rescind his criminal charging guidance.
"While
this policy may seem on the surface to be tough on crime, there is
strong data suggesting that it is neither smart on crime nor fair on
justice," argued the attorneys general.
Bennett will continue to fight alongside them for lasting changes.
But
he also has a chance to see redemption on a small scale. He now
oversees Mandy Martinson's parole and -- if and when she shows she is
ready and when she has fully paid her debt to society -- he could end
her probation and welcome her back to freedom.
No Comment to " The judge who says he's part of the gravest injustice in America "