Politics

Holder Argues for Success of Drug Sentencing Policies

Published

11 years ago

February 18, 2015

In this Feb. 11, 2015 file photo, Attorney General Eric Holder speaks to law enforcement officers and guests in the Old Executive Office Building on the White House Complex in Washington. The share of federal drug offenders who received harsh mandatory minimum sentences has plunged in the past year, according to figures obtained by The Associated Press that Holder plans to cite Tuesday in arguing for the success of his criminal justice policies. Experts credit Holder for helping raise sentencing policy as a public issue, but they also say it’s hard to gauge how much of the impact is directly attributable to his actions. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

ERIC TUCKER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors are changing the way drug defendants are charged and punished, Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday, unveiling statistics that show sentences are increasingly being based less on rigid formulas and more on the circumstances of each crime.

It’s a signature issue for Holder’s legacy as he prepares to leave the Justice Department in a matter of weeks as its first African American attorney general.

New data compiled by the U.S. Sentencing Commission show a shift over the last year in which prosecutors steer away from seeking the harshest punishments for low-level drug offenders and redirect their resources to go after more violent criminals.

The figures show federal prosecutors pursued mandatory minimum punishments in roughly 51 percent of drug cases, the lowest rate on record, in the year that ended last September. That was down from 64 percent the year before.

Overall, the number of federal drug trafficking prosecutions dropped by 6 percent during the same period, which Holder said was proof that prosecutors are getting pickier in the federal cases they bring.

“The changes that we have implemented are firmly taking hold,” Holder said in a speech at the National Press Club. “And our key reforms appear to be successful by every measure that we have taken and that we have seen so far.”

For decades, law enforcement authorities have measured success by the numbers of convictions and the length of prison terms, an approach seen as particularly useful during the 1980s-era crack epidemic. In keeping with that stance, a 2003 memo from then-Attorney General John Ashcroft directed prosecutors to charge the most serious provable crime against defendants.

But in six years as attorney general, Holder sought limits on long drug sentences as a matter of fairness and cost and promoted a sentencing regime based more on the facts of a case and less on formulas. A key goal was to help limit an overcrowded prison population bloated with drug offenders.

In August 2013, he announced a package of changes called “Smart on Crime,” which directed prosecutors to avoid charging non-violent drug offenders with crimes that carry mandatory minimum sentences — rigid, usually years-long punishments that are generally dictated by drug quantity and restrict a judge’s discretion.

Justice Department prosecutors have expressed concern that gestures of leniency would limit their leverage to negotiate plea deals. But in the last fiscal year the percentage of guilty pleas has held steady, along with the percentage of drug defendants who received credit for cooperation, which the Justice Department says belies the prosecutors’ concerns.

Even as the overall number of federal drug trafficking prosecutions dropped from 22,215 to 20,824 — a 6 percent decline — the average suggested minimum prison term in those cases rose from 96 months to 98 months, which Holder maintained proves prosecutors are focusing on more serious crimes.

Still, it’s not clear from the limited snapshot whether the numbers reflect a new normal, or will continue to fluctuate as they have for most of the last decade.

And while experts credit Holder for helping raise sentencing policy as a public issue, some also say it’s hard in a complex and interrelated criminal justice system to gauge how much is directly attributable to the attorney general’s policy shift.

“I think it’s impossible to identify one factor that is going to be the cause of all the change,” said Julie Stewart, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums. “But I don’t think it’s wrong to give Holder some credit for caring about who’s in prison or trying to get his U.S. Attorneys not to overcharge.”

Even before Holder’s policy announcement 18 months ago, long drug sentences were already facing scrutiny and some downward-pointing trends were already starting to take shape.

In the last decade, for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court made sentencing guideline ranges advisory rather than mandatory and President Barack Obama signed a law to cut crack cocaine penalties. Last year, the Sentencing Commission — an independent panel that sets sentencing policy — slashed guideline ranges for drug crimes and applied those changes retroactively.

Though Holder’s departure is imminent, the Justice Department budget proposal includes funds to study the new policy’s impact over the next year.

His expected successor, Loretta Lynch — the top federal prosecutor for parts of New York — voiced general support for “Smart on Crime” at her confirmation hearings but faced only limited questions about drug sentencing policy, a likely indication that an issue once seen as politically volatile has now gained far more mainstream acceptance.

“To the extent that he’s helping to open up the climate and helping to give a greater level of comfort to mainstream lawmakers, that would be one of the most significant long-term effects of his tenure,” said Marc Maurer, executive director of the Sentencing Project.

____

Associated Press writer Michael Tarm in Chicago contributed to this report.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

America’s 11 Poorest Cities

Don't Miss

Judge Halts Obama’s Immigration Action

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

OP-ED: AB 1349 Puts Corporate Power Over Community

Since Ticketmaster and Live Nation merged in 2010, ticket prices have jumped more than 150 percent. Activities that once fit a family’s budget now take significant disposable income that most working families simply don’t have. The problem is compounded by a system that has tilted access toward the wealthy and white-collar workers. If you have a fancy credit card, you get “presale access,” and if you work in an office instead of a warehouse, you might be able to wait in an online queue to buy a ticket. Access now means privilege.

Published

4 days ago

January 9, 2026

Oakland Post

Bishop Joseph Simmons, Senior Pastor, Greater St. Paul Baptist Church, Oakland

By Bishop Joseph Simmons, Senior Pastor, Greater St. Paul Baptist Church, Oakland

As a pastor, I believe in the power that a sense of community can have on improving people’s lives. Live events are one of the few places where people from different backgrounds and ages can share the same space and experience – where construction workers sit next to lawyers at a concert, and teenagers enjoy a basketball game with their grandparents. Yet, over the past decade, I’ve witnessed these experiences – the concerts, games, and cultural events where we gather – become increasingly unaffordable, and it is a shame.

These moments of connection matter as they form part of the fabric that holds communities together. But that fabric is fraying because of Ticketmaster/Live Nation’s unchecked control over access to live events. Unfortunately, AB 1349 would only further entrench their corporate power over our spaces.

Power over live events is concentrated in a single corporate entity, and this regime operates without transparency or accountability – much like a dictator. Ticketmaster controls 80 percent of first-sale tickets and nearly a third of resale tickets, but they still want more. More power, more control for Ticketmaster means higher prices and less access for consumers. It’s the agenda they are pushing nationally, with the help of former Trump political operatives, who are quietly trying to undo the antitrust lawsuit launched against Ticketmaster/Live Nation under President Biden’s DOJ.

That’s why I’m deeply concerned about AB 1349 in its current form. Rather than reining in Ticketmaster’s power, the bill risks strengthening it, aligning with Trump. AB 1349 gives Ticketmaster the ability to control a consumer’s ticket forever by granting Ticketmaster’s regime new powers in state law to prevent consumers from reselling or giving away their tickets. It also creates new pathways for Ticketmaster to discriminate and retaliate against consumers who choose to shop around for the best service and fees on resale platforms that aren’t yet controlled by Ticketmaster. These provisions are anti-consumer and anti-democratic.

California has an opportunity to stand with consumers, to demand transparency, and to restore genuine competition in this industry. But that requires legislation developed with input from the community and faith leaders, not proposals backed by the very company causing the harm.

Will our laws reflect fairness, inclusion, and accountability? Or will we let corporate interests tighten their grip on spaces that should belong to everyone? I, for one, support the former and encourage the California Legislature to reject AB 1349 outright or amend it to remove any provisions that expand Ticketmaster’s control. I also urge community members to contact their representatives and advocate for accessible, inclusive live events for all Californians. Let’s work together to ensure these gathering spaces remain open and welcoming to everyone, regardless of income or background.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

Published

2 weeks ago

January 2, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

2025 in Review: Seven Questions for Assemblymember Lori Wilson — Advocate for Equity, the Environment, and More

Her rise has also included several historic firsts: she is the only Black woman ever appointed to lead the influential Assembly Transportation Committee, and the first freshman legislator elected Chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus. She has also been a vocal advocate for vulnerable communities, becoming the first California legislator to publicly discuss being the parent of a transgender child — an act of visibility that has helped advanced representation at a time when political tensions related to social issues and culture have intensified.

Published

2 weeks ago

December 29, 2025

Oakland Post

Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City). File photo.

By Edward Henderson, California Black Media

Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City) joined the California Legislature in 2022 after making history as Solano County’s first Black female mayor, bringing with her a track record of fiscal discipline, community investment, and inclusive leadership.

She represents the state’s 11th Assembly District, which spans Solano County and portions of Contra Costa and Sacramento Counties.

California Black Media spoke with Wilson about her successes and disappointments this year and her outlook for 2026.

What stands out as your most important achievement this year?

Getting SB 237 passed in the Assembly. I had the opportunity to co-lead a diverse workgroup of colleagues, spanning a wide range of ideological perspectives on environmental issues.

How did your leadership contribute to improving the lives of Black Californians this year?

The Black Caucus concentrated on the Road to Repair package and prioritized passing a crucial bill that remained incomplete during my time as chair, which establishes a process for identifying descendants of enslaved people for benefit eligibility.

What frustrated you the most this year?

The lack of progress made on getting Prop 4 funds allocated to socially disadvantaged farmers. This delay has real consequences. These farmers have been waiting for essential support that was promised. Watching the process stall, despite the clear need and clear intent of the voters, has been deeply frustrating and reinforces how much work remains to make our systems more responsive and equitable.

What inspired you the most this year?

The resilience of Californians persists despite the unprecedented attacks from the federal government. Watching people stay engaged, hopeful, and determined reminded me why this work matters and why we must continue to protect the rights of every community in our state.

What is one lesson you learned this year that will inform your decision-making next year?

As a legislator, I have the authority to demand answers to my questions — and accept nothing less. That clarity has strengthened my approach to oversight and accountability.

In one word, what is the biggest challenge Black Californians are facing currently?

Affordability and access to quality educational opportunities.

What is the goal you want to achieve most in 2026?

Advance my legislative agenda despite a complex budget environment. The needs across our communities are real, and even in a tight fiscal year, I’m committed to moving forward policies that strengthen safety, expand opportunity, and improve quality of life for the people I represent.