“I Live to Put People in Jail”: Here Are Trump’s Nominees for the US Sentencing Commission

Two of the four names put forward by Trump are known for their tough-on-crime approach to criminal justice.

AndreyPopov/iStock/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump announced four nominees to serve on the US Sentencing Commission, a bipartisan agency that creates sentencing guidelines for federal courts and is tasked with reducing sentencing disparities.

Two of the nominees have reputations for being tough on crime, including Georgetown University law professor Bill Otis, a former federal prosecutor who is a staunch supporter of mandatory minimum sentences and has criticized the commission’s guidelines for not being binding. “Our whole sentencing system that started in the Reagan-Bush era, the system of guidelines and mandatory minimums, has been a big success,” he told NPR last year after Attorney General Jeff Sessions urged federal prosecutors to seek the toughest punishments possible for their cases. “If one judges the success of the criminal justice system by the crime rate rather than the incarceration rate, under the system we’ve had and that Jeff Sessions is now restoring, there has been a tremendous fall-off in crime.”

In 2011, Otis told a House subcommittee that he believed the Sentencing Commission should be abolished, arguing that it became toothless after the Supreme Court in 2005 ruled that its sentencing guidelines should be advisory and not mandatory. “Fifteen years ago, the Commission was the 900-pound gorilla of sentencing law. It wrote binding rules, which courts followed more than seventy percent of the time, at an annual cost of roughly $8.8 million,” he testified. “Today, the Commission is an overfed lemur. It writes sentencing suggestion, which courts follow fifty-three percent of the time, at roughly twice the annual cost ($16.2 million).”

The second tough-on-crime nominee is Henry E. Hudson, a US district judge for the Eastern District of Virginia. Earlier in his career, as a prosecutor, Hudson stood by his decision to prosecute a mentally impaired man for the rape and murder of a woman in Arlington and then refused to apologize after the man served five years in prison and was exonerated by DNA evidence. He once declared, “I live to put people in jail” and was given the nickname “Hang ‘Em High” Henry.

The other two nominees saw advancements in their judicial careers under President Barack Obama. Judge William H. Pryor Jr., a former attorney general of Alabama, was appointed as a commissioner in 2013 by Obama and has now been nominated to serve as the commission’s chairman. Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo of Pennsylvania was appointed to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in 2016 by Obama. Restrepo was born in Colombia, moved to the United States at age two, and worked as a public defender and a law clerk at the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project before becoming a judge.

The Sentencing Commission was created in 1984, following criticism that federal judges across the country were handing down different sentences for people convicted of the same crime. Under the Obama administration, commissioners reduced punishments for many federal drug offenses, allowing tens of thousands of inmates to seek reduced sentences. 

The four nominations were announced days after the White House dealt a blow to sentencing reform in Congress. On Tuesday, senior White House officials told reporters that the Trump administration did not see a way to advance the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, a bill championed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley to reduce mandatory minimum prison sentences, after it faced pushback from conservative lawmakers and Sessions, who described it as a “grave error” that would allow a “highly dangerous…criminals” to leave prison sooner.

“The sentencing reform part still does not have a pathway forward to getting done,” a White House official said. The Senate Judiciary Committee had advanced the bill to the floor by a 16-5 vote last month.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate