National

The Truth about Association

the FIRST STEP Act of Assistant
United States Attorneys
800 455-5661

The Truth about the FIRST STEP Act

The revised FIRST STEP Act, drafted in secret and released to the public only hours
before the Senate left for Thanksgiving recess, would not reduce recidivism, would grant
early release to dangerous, violent offenders, is filled with shiny objects to distract, and
continues to change behind closed doors.

The FIRST STEP Act would not reduce recidivism.

• The FIRST STEP Act’s proponents claim the bill is modeled after state criminal justice
reforms. Yet, the federal system is already far superior to the state criminal justice systems
when it comes to reducing recidivism and preparing inmates for their return to society. The
rate of former inmates who are rearrested for a new crime within five years of release
is 24 percent for federal inmates, but 77 percent for state inmates.

• The FIRST STEP Act’s proponents claim the bill will “incentivize” participation in
recidivism reduction programming and productive activities in prison. Yet, according to the
Bureau of Prisons (BOP), virtually all federal inmates already participate in such programs
(which, combined with the longer sentences in the federal system, explains why the federal
recidivism rate is so much lower than the state recidivism rate). As a result, according to
BOP’s analysis, the bill would not cause any meaningful change in behavior or increase
in participation in these programs.

The FIRST STEP Act would grant early release to dangerous, violent offenders.

• The FIRST STEP Act would grant reduced sentences and early release to hardened drug
traffickers, especially repeat offenders who traffic in the largest amounts. For example, a
repeat trafficker with a lengthy criminal history, moving enough fentanyl to kill hundreds of
thousands of people, would be sentenced to a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence
under current law, yet under the FIRST STEP Act that same trafficker could be
released from prison in as little as 7 years, 10 months, without having to change
anything about his behavior or program participation.
 • The FIRST STEP Act also allows early release (up to one-third of the sentence off) for
numerous serious, violent crimes, sexual crimes, gun crimes, and immigration crimes. For
example, the FIRST STEP Act would allow early release for criminals convicted of:

o Assaulting a law enforcement officer, even with a dangerous weapon (18 U.S.C. §
111(a));
o Assault resulting in serious bodily injury against a spouse, intimate partner, or
even a child (18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(7));
o All first-time convictions (and many repeat convictions) for carrying a gun during a
crime of violence or drug trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C));
o Stealing passports or immigration documents from aliens who have been
trafficked in order to keep them in slavery (18 U.S.C. § 1592(a)(3));
o Drug-related robberies involving assault with a dangerous weapon, even if serious
bodily injury results (18 U.S.C. § 2118(c)(1));
o Arson (18 U.S.C. § 81); and
o Trafficking fentanyl and heroin (more than 90 percent of fentanyl and heroin
traffickers are be eligible for early release under the bill) (21 U.S.C. § 841).

These are but a few of the countless examples of crimes that are eligible for significant,
early release under the legislation.

• The FIRST STEP Act also grants sentencing reductions to virtually every offender in
federal prison, regardless of what crime they committed, by retroactively increasing
“good conduct credits” for all offenders. The bill proponents claim the provision, which
changes how good conduct credits are calculated, “merely clarifies” the a “statutory
misinterpretation” (despite that the Supreme Court has upheld the current formula for
calculating good conduct credits as following the explicit language of the current statute).
Yet, even if this were a “clarification,” the bill applies the change retroactively, granting
early release to thousands of violent criminals, sex offenders, drug traffickers, and even
illegal aliens.

The FIRST STEP Act is filled with shiny objects meant to distract,

• The true purpose and primary effect of the FIRST STEP Act would be to reduce the
consequences for serious criminals when they break the law, including those criminals who
commit heinous acts of violence, drug trafficking, and sex crimes. Nonetheless, the bill
attempts to bury most of those changes underneath misleading, shiny objects that sound
innocuous and can be used to demonize opponents of criminal leniency. For example:

o Proponents regularly point to a short provision in the middle of the bill that prohibits
BOP from using restraints on pregnant inmates, except in certain circumstances where
it is necessary to prevent her from escaping or harming herself. This is already BOP’s
policy toward pregnant inmates, meaning this provision merely codifies policies that
are already in place;
 o Proponents also regularly point to the FIRST STEP Act’s requirement that the
Department of Justice and BOP establish a “risk and needs assessment system” to
evaluate each inmate and determine where best to place the inmate and which
programs to offer. BOP already has an assessment system in place to provide an
individual assessment of each inmate, and this system has proven more effective
than the state systems at rehabilitating inmates during their time in prison.

The FIRST SEP Act continues to change behind closed doors.

• Despite calls from proponents to hold an immediate vote, the “final” text of the bill was
not released until just before the Senate left for Thanksgiving, and there are reports of
additional changes and negotiations out of the public eye.

• Proponents say this bill is safe, tough on crime, supported by law enforcement, and widely
bipartisan. If that were true, why are they fighting so hard against holding hearings on
the bill and making sure everyone knows what it really does before trying to force a
vote.