‘A step backwards’: Mandatory minimum sentences won’t stop violent crime in Missouri

On its face, Missouri state Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer’s tough-on-crime argument sounds logical: Violent criminals must be held accountable for their actions.

But what Luetkemeyer gets wrong in his criminal justice reform package that’s making its way through the Missouri Senate is imposing mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines that would take away a judge’s discretion in administering punishment for violent offenders.

One proposal, Senate Bill 600, would deny probation for someone convicted of second-degree murder or any other dangerous felony involving a deadly weapon. Another measure, Senate Bill 601, would change the minimum prison term for armed criminal action from three years to five years for a first offense. A prisoner would not be eligible for parole for five years.

In Missouri, armed criminal action is a companion charge used in felony cases involving a dangerous weapon. Judges often run armed criminal action sentences concurrently with sentences for primary felony convictions.

The bill would mandate that the sentences run consecutively, a complete legislative overreach.

Judges must be able to administer justice on a case-by-case basis. A one-size-fits-all approach to criminal justice already has proved ineffective.

There is ample evidence that tougher mandatory minimum sentences have often been ineffective at best and unfairly punitive in many cases. And studies have shown that people of color have been disproportionately affected by mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines.

Luetkemeyer, a Parkville Republican who chairs the Senate judiciary committee, argues the recidivism rate in Missouri for violent offenders is close to 65%. During a 10-year period, at least 25 people have been given probation for second-degree murder, he said. The proper place for those criminals is in prison, not on probation.

Sara Baker, the legislative and policy director for the ACLU of Missouri, testified against Luetkemeyers’ armed criminal action bill, which passed through the Senate judiciary committee by a 6-1 vote and is expected to be heard on the Senate floor in the coming weeks.

“Mandatory minimums have been used to over-sentence minority populations for years and years,” Baker said. “Missouri is trying to decrease its prison population and implement criminal justice reforms, and this seems like a step backwards.”

She’s right. Luetkemeyer’s push for tougher mandatory minimum sentences is out of step with bipartisan efforts in Congress to move away from the unjust sentencing laws that have swelled our prison populations. On this — and perhaps only this — Republicans in Congress, Democrats in Congress and the president have all agreed, as they’ve rethought outdated tough-on-crime laws, prioritized rehabilitation and given judges more flexibility in sentencing.

Luetkemeyer is trying to move Missouri in the wrong direction.

Missouri is a dangerous state. Three of its cities have been named among the 12 most violent cities in the country.

But lawmakers can’t incarcerate their way to crime reduction. Commonsense gun reform would be a more effective step toward reducing violent crime. Other criminal justice reforms should be considered.

While Luetkemeyer is right that violent criminals should be held accountable, judges must maintain some discretion in imposing prison sentences. Mandatory minimums are not the answer.