"Section 5.
I. Mandatory minimums for all non-violent crimes may not exceed one year imprisonment in all jurisdictions in the Northeast."
Embezzlement of millions even? Bernie Madoff should get out in a year? Traffickers in kiddie porn? Doctors defrauding Medicaid for millions? Tax fraud of the highest order? A drunk driver with their 10th conviction in as many years only needs a year just because they didn't hit and kill/maim anyone this time....YET?
I'd be interested in knowing what the NE defines as "violent crimes".
"II. Mandatory minimums for all drug related non-violent crimes may not exceed six-months in all jurisdictions in the Northeast."
A statewide respected criminal defense attorney I knew once told me "I generally support legalization of drugs and oppose prosecuting addicts, but drug dealers are generally dangerous scumbags". Do we really want people like that to face only up to 6 months? I GUARANTEE you that for everyone who ever thought about dealing, facing only 6 months will quickly be accepted as the cost of doing business.
Is reducing "minimum mandatory" sentences going to really help? Most non-violent offenses with minimum mandatory sentences usually have STRONG aggravating factors, but the vast majority of non-violent offenses don't have minimum mandatory sentences.
Two cents from the Forum's uncoolly authoritarian prosecutor.