The most fundamental duty of a government is public safety. This is a principle as old as our republic. John Locke wrote that individuals consent to government authority for one over-riding reason: protection of our lives, liberty, and property. Thomas Jefferson again wrote this in the Declaration of Independence as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that governments exist to secure these rights. Our first obligation must be to protect law-abiding citizens.
As a prosecuting attorney, I am entrusted with the most impactful authority government can exercise over its citizens – the power to take away liberty. That power must be exercised with reasoned judgment and fidelity to the rule of law. But the sentence imposed and carried out must also abide by those limitations.
Sentencing reform, as a step closer to truth-in-sentencing is not about increasing severity or extending prison terms. It is about restoring the rule of law—the principle that laws must be applied fairly, transparently, and directly as written. The rule of law is the foundation of public understanding and trust in our system of government. In criminal law, this means protecting the legitimacy of justice by keeping promises to our victims, our jurors, our community, and to the defendants as well. This year, I am hopeful the passage of House Bills 2637 & 3155 and Senate Bills 862 and 894 by Senator Jill Carter can bring about these necessary changes.
The criminal code exists to deter crime, protect communities, and incapacitate offenders. When sentencing structure fails to achieve these ends – whether by excessive punishment or leniency – it either erodes public confidence or empowers criminals. Our criminal justice system must be rational, credible, and easily understood by the public. A system where punishment lacks transparency or consistency fails that test.
That very concern motivated federal policy in the mid-1990s, when Congress adopted truth-in-sentencing as part of a broader crime bill. The federal government incentivized states to hold offenders of violent crime until they served a substantial portion of their imposed sentences, generally 85 percent. The purpose of this is not to punish offenders more severely, but to bring transparency to a convoluted system where no one was certain when a prisoner would be released.
In effect, the bill achieved that policy goal in a limited scope. With truth-in-sentencing, victims were given greater clarity about outcomes. A judge could finally expect that time actually served bore some semblance the sentence pronounced in court. Unfortunately, these rules only apply to violent offenders, while non-violent offenders serve a mere fraction of their sentence before being granted parole or conditional release.
Prosecutors see this reality firsthand. We see offenders repeatedly cycle through the system because the sentences handed down by our courts are not carried out in our prisons. This neither deters future crime nor protects the public. While these offenders may not fall within narrow statutory definitions of violent crime, their repeated conduct inflicts harm on our communities and strains the resources of police and prosecutors. This outcome fails to honor the commitments made to victims, weakens the justice system’s obligation to public safety, and undermines the rule of law.
Sentencing reform, properly understood, is not about being harsher on crime or imprisoning people for longer sentences – It is about being exacting and building trust within our criminal justice system. Victims deserve to know when an offender may be released. Judges and jurors deserve to know what their verdicts actually mean. Communities deserve confidence that sentences imposed in court will be carried out. And, as importantly, offenders deserve to understand, clearly and upfront, the real consequences of their actions.
Public trust depends on that very credibility and a restoration of the rule of law. The purpose of a prison sentence is not symbolic and reform is necessary. Reform that brings us closer to truth in sentencing fulfills government’s most basic obligation and protects law-abiding citizens through a system they can trust. Urge your legislators to vote ‘yes’ on House Bills 2637 & 3155 and Senate Bills 862 and 894.
William Lynch serves as the Prosecuting Attorney for Newton County
