On Matter of Mercy, Obama Can’t Blame GOP for Gridlock

The president can act unilaterally today to bring long-awaited justice to drug offenders.

Mark Osler
Ron Fournier
Add to Briefcase
Ron Fournier
Dec. 8, 2015, 9:50 p.m.

Whenev­er Pres­id­ent Obama or his al­lies com­plain about GOP obstacles to his lib­er­al agenda, I think of the ra­cial dis­par­it­ies in pris­on sen­tences for drug of­fend­ers. Obama has ab­so­lute and un­dis­puted power to par­don or com­mute the sen­tences of people jailed un­der sen­tences that the Su­preme Court and Con­gress later deemed to be ex­cess­ive.

But he’s done little to help.

The sys­tem Obama es­tab­lished to fix a broken sys­tem is broken, a bur­eau­crat­ic clog of re­dund­an­cies, in­tern­al polit­ics, and talk­ing points. After read­ing Sari Hor­witz’s story on the clem­ency pro­cess in The Wash­ing­ton Post on Sunday, I emailed my old friend Mark Osler, a former fed­er­al pro­sec­utor who holds the Robert and Mari­on Short Dis­tin­guished Chair in Law at the Uni­versity of St. Thomas in Min­neapol­is. His writ­ings on nar­cot­ics and sen­ten­cing have ap­peared in The New York Times and The Wash­ing­ton Post, and in law re­views at Har­vard, Stan­ford, the Uni­versity of Chica­go, North­west­ern, and Rut­gers. In 2009, he won the case of Spears v. United States in the U.S. Su­preme Court, in which the Court held that a 100:1 ra­tio between crack co­caine and powder co­caine in the U.S. Sen­ten­cing Guidelines could be cat­egor­ic­ally re­jec­ted by sen­ten­cing judges.

Our lightly ed­ited email ex­change:

FOURNI­ER: OK. Let’s get the per­son­al dis­clos­ure out of the way. Have we ever met be­fore?

OSLER: Yup—we met back when we were scrawny run­ners, stu­dent journ­al­ists, and friends in high school. I like to pre­tend we look pretty much the same now. 

FOURNI­ER: We do. But that’s off the re­cord. So tell me why a former fed­er­al pro­sec­utor from De­troit cares so pas­sion­ately about clem­ency for con­victed drug deal­ers and users. Why should any­body care about them?

OSLER: I’m still a pro­sec­utor at heart. Some people are dan­ger­ous, and need to be locked up. But when I was pro­sec­ut­ing young black men for selling crack, I real­ized it did not make any dif­fer­ence. We were sweep­ing up low-wage labor, people who would be re­placed the next day by someone else selling crack. Their sen­tences were out of line, too. Low-level, non-vi­ol­ent drug deal­ers were get­ting longer sen­tences than bank rob­bers and those who com­mit­ted ma­jor frauds. We have changed the laws, but many of those people are still in pris­on even though they would be out if they had been sen­tenced un­der our cur­rent laws, sen­ten­cing guidelines, and policies. Keep­ing them in pris­on is a fail­ure of justice and mercy at the same time. It wastes money, tears up lives, and solves no prob­lem. As justice is­sues go, this should be an easy one, a lay­up. 

FOURNI­ER: Then why the air balls? Tell me what you want Pres­id­ent Obama to do and why you think he hasn’t got­ten it done. 

OSLER: It’s the same reas­on that GM can’t fix an ig­ni­tion switch that kills people: too much bur­eau­cracy and not enough ac­count­ab­il­ity (we De­troit guys can’t stay away from car ana­lo­gies). He sees the prob­lem. He knows the broad scope of the par­don power, too, since he taught con­sti­tu­tion­al law for all those years at the Uni­versity of Chica­go. He just re­fuses to fix a broken sys­tem, something he could do with the stroke of a pen on an ex­ec­ut­ive or­der.

FOURNI­ER: Why? Why does he re­fuse to do what he says is the right thing?

OSLER:  My sus­pi­cion—and it is only that—is that he de­fers to old heads at the De­part­ment of Justice who are loath to give up any power. That’s not a good reas­on, es­pe­cially when voices on the Right and Left (even a white pa­per from the Her­it­age Found­a­tion) re­cog­nize the con­flict in­her­ent in giv­ing the DOJ an ef­fect­ive veto over a power meant by the Framers to be wiel­ded by the pres­id­ent as a tool of bal­ance against le­gis­lat­ive and pro­sec­utori­al over­reach.

FOURNI­ER: OK. Let’s say you’re ad­vising him. What does he do today with the stroke of a pen to fix the sys­tem?

OSLER: Right now there are four dif­fer­ent of­fi­cials and their staffs ana­lyz­ing each of these thou­sands of pe­ti­tions: the par­don at­tor­ney, the deputy at­tor­ney gen­er­al, the White House coun­sel, and the pres­id­ent. Phys­ic­al files are lit­er­ally shuttled between four dif­fer­ent fed­er­al build­ings. The deputy at­tor­ney gen­er­al has a ton of oth­er things to do, and works in a build­ing full of pro­sec­utors. That step should be cut out. Bring the par­don at­tor­ney over to the of­fice with the White House coun­sel, and have pe­ti­tions go dir­ectly to them. That way, a file goes to just two build­ings, the cases get prop­er vet­ting, and there is ef­fi­ciency. The Wash­ing­ton Post last Sunday had former Deputy At­tor­ney Gen­er­al James Cole de­scribe how he schlepped clem­ency files home on Sat­urday—the only time he had to con­sider them un­in­ter­rup­ted. That is the prob­lem in a single im­age. The fix needs no ap­pro­pri­ation, just polit­ic­al will and a pen. We know that Pres­id­ent Obama has the pen, at least.  

FOURNI­ER: Give me a sense of scope. How many over-sen­tenced people have been awar­ded clem­ency by the pres­id­ent? How many are in the pipeline? How many are people are reas­on­able, ob­vi­ous can­did­ates for clem­ency (and why)? 

OSLER: Ac­cord­ing to the par­don at­tor­ney, 18,698 com­mut­a­tion pe­ti­tions have been re­ceived since Pres­id­ent Obama took of­fice, and 9,980 have been denied or closed. That means there are over 8,000 pe­ti­tions pending. Over his en­tire nearly-sev­en years in of­fice, the pres­id­ent has com­muted only 89 sen­tences. Not all of those 8,000+ pe­ti­tions are strong, but if even a frac­tion are worth­while, the pres­id­ent has an aw­ful lot of work to do with a strik­ingly in­ef­fi­cient sys­tem. The most ob­vi­ous can­did­ates of all are those who were sen­tenced for crack un­der the old laws that are now changed. Their cases lie in the shad­ow of damning ra­cial dis­par­it­ies, failed policies, and deep tragedy, and prob­ably con­sti­tute at least sev­er­al hun­dred of the re­main­ing pe­ti­tion­ers.

FOURNI­ER: Tell me about Ron­ald Blount. I read about him in the fi­nal few para­graphs of this bra­cing Wash­ing­ton Post story and I sus­pect he’s a re­flec­tion of a broken sys­tem that the pres­id­ent has the power to fix.

OSLER: Ron­ald is a re­formed crack ad­dict. He has served 16 years of a life sen­tence for a low-level role in someone else’s crack ring. He was so poor, so ad­dicted, that he was liv­ing on his moth­er’s porch and beg­ging for change in a park at the time he was con­victed. This is the king­pin we have to in­ca­pa­cit­ate at a cost of over a mil­lion dol­lars? Keep­ing him in pris­on is im­mor­al, wrong, and tra­gic. In that art­icle, Eric Hold­er re­spon­ded to my plea for ur­gency by say­ing that Pres­id­ent Obama is “talk­ing” about this is­sue a lot. It’s true. He was talk­ing a lot about it while Ron­ald Blount sat in a cell. That is a stark con­trast to Pres­id­ent Kennedy and his broth­er Robert, who used clem­ency to quietly free hun­dreds of drug de­fend­ants serving harsh terms.

FOURNI­ER: I don’t think you doubt the pres­id­ent’s sin­cer­ity to act but I’ve got to ask: Is he a hy­po­crite or feck­less? Or is there an­oth­er op­tion?

OSLER: In the end, he might be either, both, or neither. There is one year left. If he chooses to noodle along with only a few hun­dred grants, it will be quickly for­got­ten, ex­cept by the thou­sands who were giv­en false hope. If he finds cour­age to be the boss of the DOJ and cre­ates an ef­fi­cient sys­tem that frees thou­sands, he will have ful­filled a prom­ise to the over-in­car­cer­ated and also would re­vive the par­don power as a prin­cipled tool of the pres­id­ent. He well knows the max­im of Micah 6:8 (be­cause he really is a Chris­ti­an): That we are to do justice and love mercy and walk humbly with our God. Justice and mercy are out of bal­ance. He can fix that.

FOURNI­ER: What did I fail to ask? What would you like to add?

OSLER: My col­lab­or­at­or in cre­at­ing the Clem­ency Re­source Cen­ter, [New York Uni­versity] law pro­fess­or Rachel Barkow, says that the dis­astrous clem­ency policies of the last three pres­id­ents have cre­ated a “gap­ing black hole of justice.” She’s right. This ad­min­is­tra­tion’s ef­forts to pass le­gis­la­tion and re­form char­ging policies are right and ad­mir­able, but lim­ited by the re­luct­ance of oth­er act­ors. Con­gress is a mess, and pro­sec­utors are re­cal­cit­rant, but clem­ency is a sharp knife in the pres­id­ent’s hand that can cut the ropes bind­ing up people like Ron­ald Blount. Use it.

What We're Following See More »
Another Short-Term CR May Be in the Works
0 minute ago

"Administration officials said they expect Congress to pass a stopgap bill to avert a third government shutdown this year as lawmakers scramble to finalize a must-pass omnibus spending bill. White House legislative affairs director Marc Short told CNN Tuesday that negotiators are getting closer to reaching an agreement, but there are "too many obstacles to tackle" for the omnibus bill to make it out of the lower chamber by Thursday."

Sessions Encourages Prosecutors To Seek Death Penalty For Drug Cases
27 minutes ago

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions is encouraging all U.S. attorneys to pursue the death penalty in certain drug cases. 'I strongly encourage federal prosecutors to use these statutes, when appropriate, to aid in our continuing fight against drug trafficking and the destruction it causes in our nation,'" Sessions wrote in a Tuesday DOJ memo. "We cannot continue with business as usual." President Trump first proposed the step in New Hampshire speech on Monday. "If we don't get tough on the drug dealers, we're wasting our time," he said. "That toughness includes the death penalty."

Ryan Invites Macron to Deliver Joint Speech
2 hours ago
Austin Package Bomber Killed
3 hours ago
Rep. Lipinski Wins
3 hours ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.