James Zeigler: DC Council’s ‘second look’ sentencing efforts are thoughtful, safe and just responses to crisis of mass incarceration

The DC Council is considering important legislation that would strengthen the 2016 Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act (“IRAA”), which allows people who committed crimes when they were young to petition the court for a reduced sentence after they’ve served at least 15 years in prison. 

The IRAA was originally passed as part of the Comprehensive Youth Justice Amendment Act of 2016 in response to advancements in childhood development science that indicate that “planning, working memory and impulse control are one of the last areas of the brain to develop and may not be fully developed until the mid-twenties,” according to a DC Council committee report. It was also passed in response to a line of Supreme Court cases which, relying on this same science, held that juveniles are less culpable than adults and should accordingly be spared society’s most severe punishments. The justices also held that people previously given such punishments as juveniles should be afforded “a meaningful opportunity for release” if they have demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation since being incarcerated. 

The IRAA was originally passed to provide this chance at release to people who had been given extreme sentences in DC Superior Court for crimes committed before they were 18. The bill currently under consideration by the council, the Second Look Amendment Act, would expand eligibility under the law to people who were under 25 at the time of their offense, a range which is more consistent with the present science on when young people reach developmental maturity. 

The Washington Post recently published an editorial opposing the proposed legislation, arguing, without any evidence, that it would make DC less safe. Similarly, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia — which has universally opposed relief for petitioners under the current version of the law — issued a histrionic statement on Friday in opposition to both the pending legislation and the current law. This statement avoids any discussion of the rigorous review process for petitions for relief, and instead exclaims that the pending law will “make over 500 violent criminals immediately eligible for early release.”

The concern that the law will threaten public safety is unfounded. In order to modify a sentence, a judge must affirmatively find that the petitioner is no longer a danger to the community. To make this finding, the law requires a thorough judicial review to determine whether a person has grown — and whether they have demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation — while incarcerated. It also requires that judges consider the role the person played in the original offense, the wishes of victims and their families, and any other facts a judge may deem relevant to the decision, including information related to the original offense. For people who are no longer dangerous, the IRAA reconsiders past sentencing practices in light of what we now know about youths’ brain development and the consequences of mass incarceration, in which our highly punitive sentencing practices have played a major role. 

The law is part of a national movement to address the extreme sentencing practices that have fueled this country’s mass-incarceration crisis. Similar laws have been passed nationwide, and Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey recently introduced a bill allowing judicial review of all sentences, not just those of young offenders, after a period of 10 years. These laws not only allow for the possibility of redemption, but also incentivize growth and rehabilitation for those serving long sentences. After all, many of these individuals will be coming home one day even without these laws. 

So far, DC judges have ruled on approximately 20 motions under the IRAA, and in 18 of those the petitioners were released on supervised probation. I represented two of the earliest men released, currently represent six others at various stages in the process, and have come to know many other men who have sought relief. In each of these cases, judges have spent countless hours reviewing briefings and evidence, including years of prison records, and hearing live testimony from witnesses and victims. Judges have consistently remarked that these decisions were not made easily; they understand the significance of these cases not only to victims and petitioners but also to their families, supporters and the community at large. The IRAA is not a rubber stamp for early release, as suggested by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the seriousness with which these cases have been considered is a testament to the strength of the Superior Court bench.

None of the men released have reoffended, and most are actively involved in the community as violence interrupters, mentors and advocates of non-violence. They are not, by any reasonable measure, the same people they were when they committed their crimes. And what we’ve seen so far is that they have transformed themselves remarkably. We must ask ourselves whether we want to continue to cage people who are genuinely remorseful and have sought to atone for the harm they caused. 

The IRAA contemplates that, for most people who are no longer dangerous and who have demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation during their incarceration, 15 years is an adequate and age-appropriate punishment. Though some may suggest otherwise, 15 years in prison is a severe punishment by any reasonable standard. In every other advanced democracy, 15-year prison terms represent the very high end of criminal punishments (for offenders of any age), and such sentences are reserved for only the most serious cases. 

Since the passage of IRAA, no institution has been more opposed to it than the U.S. Attorney’s Office, a fact that made even more clear in Friday’s press release. In every case brought under the law so far, the office has opposed a sentence reduction, no matter how much the petitioners have changed or rehabilitated themselves. This universal opposition represents a direct attack on DC’s home rule and the autonomy of District residents to shape their own community and vision of justice. The IRAA was passed by the District’s elected representatives, and the proposed DC Council legislation has support from Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office and our elected attorney general. U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu, who has overseen her office’s effort to undermine these reforms, is an appointee of President Donald Trump, who received only 4% of the vote in the District. 

DC has the highest incarceration rate in the country, and the effects are felt disproportionately by Washingtonians of color. The District’s elected representatives have advanced reforms like the IRAA to make the District a more just and equitable place, and to try and remediate the mistakes of our overly punitive past. The opposition of the U.S. Attorney’s Office should be seen for what it is: an attempt to undermine the will and ability of DC residents to determine the District’s future, and an effort to reinforce mass incarceration. And those who oppose these reforms need to be honest about what they’re truly proposing: that we continue to keep people incarcerated for decades after they have rehabilitated themselves and no longer pose a threat to society.

James Zeigler is an indigent defense lawyer in DC Superior Court and an advisory board member for the Free Minds Book Club. He lives in Park View with his spouse and their son.

---

About commentaries

The DC Line welcomes commentaries representing various viewpoints on local issues of concern, but the opinions expressed do not represent those of The DC Line. Submissions of up to 850 words may be sent to editor Chris Kain at chriskain@thedcline.org.