T

he 
United 
States, 

the 
world’s 
leading 

manufacturer 

of 
prisoners, 
has 
an 

incarceration problem. 

A rapid rise in incarceration 

rates has crippled the U.S. over 
the past three decades. During 
these years, the number of 
inmates in U.S. prisons has risen 
500 percent. As a result, the 
United States pays $80 billion 
annually in incarceration costs. 
$80 billion. That’s money that 
could go toward keeping Social 
Security 
solvent, 
supporting 

climate change research or 
rebuilding infrastructure. But 
in the United States, we spend it 
on putting citizens behind bars.

American 
imprisonment 

habits are not normal, by the 
way. The U.S. has a prison 
population of nearly 2.2 million 
people, compared with China’s 
1.5 million (despite the fact that, 
in 2011, China’s population was 
four times as large) and Great 
Britain’s 
mere 
80,000. 
Are 

Americans just more dangerous? 
What’s going on?

In 
truth, 
there 
isn’t 
a 

problem 
with 
Americans. 

There is, however, a problem 
with American laws. Federal 
mandatory minimum-sentence 
laws cause the economic and 
cultural disaster known as 
mass incarceration. Current 
law dictates that judges must 
hand down minimum sentences 
for a variety of crimes, ranging 
from 
immigration 
offenses 

to illegal food stamp activity 
to bank robbery. Mandatory 
minimums are fiscally and 
socially 
destructive; 
they 

create 
one-size-fits-all 

sentences that lengthen jail 
time for undeserving criminals 
and cost taxpayers money.

The 
incarceration 
process 

is unfair and we can’t afford it 
anymore. The fix is simple: stop 
locking so many people up.

To do this, we need a 

safety 
valve 
— 
exceptions 

to minimums that provide 
ways in which judges can 
avoid handing down harsh 

punishments that too often 
have 
unjust, 
unintended 

results. For example, statutory 
laws might force a judge to 
sentence someone to 10 years 
in prison for selling pot. If, 
however, the judge sees the 
person he’s sentencing has 
no criminal history and no 
history of violence, he can 
adjust the verdict to something 
less life-altering by way of the 
safety valve.

Safety 
valves 
can 
be 

incredibly powerful in fighting 
the mass incarceration crisis; 
this is why U.S. law already 
dictates one. The current safety 
valve is described in § 3553(f) of 
Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Under 
the provision, federal judges 
are to hand down sentences 
“without regard to any statutory 
minimum sentence” when five 
requirements are met. Good 
news, right?

There’s 
an 
issue: 
The 

aforementioned 
safety 
valve 

applies 
only 
to 
first-time, 

nonviolent drug offenders in 
cases not involving guns. This is 
a ridiculously narrow offering. 
Since the provision applies only 
to first-time offenders, even 
the most minor misconduct has 
disqualifying power. So, too, 
does possession of a gun, even 
one that is registered.

The 
safety 
valve 
must 

expand across the board for all 
federal crimes. The existing 
one-size-fits-all 
system 
of 

judicial 
sentencing 
leads 

to 
too 
many 
unwarranted 

punishments, which, in turn, 
have drastic negative effects 
on the economy. More money 
is 
spent 
keeping 
prisons 

running, while fewer able-
bodied Americans can supply 
the workforce.

The 
country’s 
social 

atmosphere also takes a hit, as 
high incarceration rates break 
up families and induce this 
crushing statistic: In 2010, 1 
in 28 American children had a 
parent behind bars. Having a 
parent in jail can be detrimental 
to a child’s well-being. A report 

from 
the 
Urban 
Institute 

found these kids are more 
likely to experience chronic 
sleeplessness, 
difficulties 

concentrating and restlessness. 
They also are more likely to 
have problems with depression, 
anxiety or aggression.

Put it all together and 

we’re left with a vicious cycle 
that not only damages the 
U.S. economy, but also leaves 
kids parentless and, often, 
emotionally scarred. 

The Justice Safety Valve 

Act proposes a broad policy 
that applies to all federal 
crimes that carry mandatory 
minimum sentences. The bill 
requires nothing of federal 
judges, since they would still 
be able to sentence at or beyond 
the mandatory minimum. The 
plan would simply give judges 
more flexibility.

It’s safe to assume that U.S. 

incarceration 
rates 
would 

shrink if this bill is passed. 
Taxpayer money could flow 
back 
toward 
rebuilding 

highways and revamping our 
education system, and parents 
would spend less time behind 
bars and more time watching 
their children grow up.

Unfortunately, 
the 

Justice Safety Valve Act was 
introduced last May in the 
Senate and hasn’t been touched 
since. Lawmakers don’t seem to 
realize the positive economic 
and cultural effects that would 
come out of its passage.

In essence, it’s a common-

sense idea: Judges should have 
a high degree of flexibility 
when making their decisions. 
Of course, the far-reaching 
issue of mass incarceration 
won’t be solved with the 
passage 
of 
one 
law. 
But 

attacking the problem will 
take time and effort. Why not 
start with a piece of legislation 
that saves taxpayers money 
and gives our federal judges a 
little more flexibility?

I 

opened 
my 
computer 

last Monday night and 
saw so many posts with 

#MeToo. 
Curious 

about what it was 
all about, I turned 
to Google. On Oct. 
15, actress Alyssa 
Milano 
tweeted, 

“Suggested 
by 
a 

friend: If all the 
women who have 
been 
sexually 

harassed 
or 

assaulted 
wrote 

‘Me too’ as a status, 
we might give people a sense 
of 
the 
magnitude 
of 
the 

problem.” I kept scrolling and 
scrolling through the posts, 
shocked to see my peers, 
teachers and family members 
post openly about their sexual 
abuse and harassment stories. 
I couldn’t believe the number 
of posts there were, and I felt 
comforted by the number of 
allies I had to relate to and 
share my experiences with. 

I, too, could have posted 

#MeToo, but I didn’t. While 
I respect and understand 
how 
survivors 
could 
feel 

personally 
supported 
in 

posting this, I also found 
it 
oversaturated 
social 

media and resulted in a less 
impactful message. I couldn’t 
help but think about the 
large audience who would 
be viewing these posts: men. 
While 1 in 6 men are sexually 
abused or assaulted, the rates 
for women are much higher. 

Don’t get me wrong: I want 

to raise awareness about this 
movement. I am also a victim 
of systematic sexism and want 
to create change for myself 
and others. Women should 
be treated with respect in 
all facets of their lives, and 

their experiences of hurt and 
trauma should not be brushed 
under the rug. 

But 
in 
that 

moment, I thought I 
didn’t have to share 
my story because 
so many others did. 
I have always felt 
my experience was 
not 
as 
traumatic 

as 
others, 
which 

is 
why 
I 
didn’t 

post 
about 
it. 
I 

felt I would have 
exaggerated 
my 

experiences by posting about 
it. But when I thought about 
this idea in the context of 
voting in an election, I realized 
the invalidity of my claim. 
Every vote counts, and in this 
situation, every person who 
has experienced sexual assault 
in any capacity counts. 

Even though I don’t like to 

plaster my opinion all over the 
internet, I still see the value 
in #MeToo. I know that I am 
not alone in feeling hesitation 
to 
share 
a 
controversial 

opinion via the internet. A lot 
of the time, young women are 
afraid to spark controversy in 
fear of the backlash we will 
receive from others. Men hold 
so much power within our 
society that women’s voices 
can often be overshadowed 
or disregarded. Women are 
conditioned to believe that 
their opinion is inferior to 
that of men.

Women who were assaulted 

by Harvey Weinstein were 
afraid to speak out about 
their experiences in fear of 
losing their jobs, social status 
and reputation. The power 
men hold in society has been 
around for centuries, and 
though women have come 

so far in the struggle for 
gender equality, like gaining 
the right to vote and equal 
minimum wage for men and 
women, we still have a long 
way to go.

This was the first time 

I 
noticed 
women’s 
voices 

elevated over men’s. This 
made me realize how powerful 
we can be and that we need 
to move beyond speaking out 
only when something bad 
happens. We need to take 
proactive 
action 
and 
talk 

about these hardships even 
when they aren’t trending in 
pop culture.

The stories of hurt and 

abuse through #MeToo are 
very powerful, and I have 
respect for those brave enough 
to share their experiences. 
Though I did not post, I had 
many intelligent conversations 
with men and women who 
were deeply shocked by what 
had happened and are ready to 
raise awareness and advocate 
for change. I am not expecting 
sexual assault to evaporate 
from society overnight, but it 
is the small conversations in 
coffee shops or dorm rooms 
that allow us to confide in 
one another to create change. 
Whether these conversations 
planted seeds in the minds of 
others or a conversation gave 
new perspective about these 
issues, the way we discuss 
with those around us has 
potential for stepping one step 
closer to equality.

In order to make change, we 

should share our knowledge 
and experiences with others 
all the time — not just when a 
hashtag is trending.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, October 26, 2017

REBECCA LERNER

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

EMMA KINERY

Editor in Chief

ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY 

and REBECCA TARNOPOL 

Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Breaking the silence

MICHELLE PHILLIPS | COLUMN

Solving our prison problem

BILLY STAMPFL | COLUMN

Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns

Samantha Goldstein

Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Anurima Kumar

Max Lubell

Lucas Maiman

Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Ali Safawi

Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Stephanie Trierweiler

Ashley Zhang

Billy Stampfl can be reached at 

bstampfl@umich.edu. 

JOE IOVINO | JOE CAN BE REACHED AT JIOVINO@UMICH.EDU

Hawkishness and hypocrisy

BRETT GRAHAM | COLUMN

I

f you’ve been following the 
developing story about the 
Trump 
administration’s 

response to the deaths of 
four American soldiers in 
Niger earlier this month, 
chances are you have 
some questions. After 
brushing up on your 
geography, you might 
ask, for instance, what 
were U.S. armed forces 
doing there in the first 
place? You wouldn’t 
be alone in wondering 
this. In fact, you would 
be in the company of at least two 
U.S. senators. 

Last Sunday, Sen. Lindsey 

Graham, R-S.C., who sits on the 
Committee on Armed Services, 
admitted on NBC’s “Meet the 
Press” that he was not even 
aware of a U.S. presence in Niger. 
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, 
D-N.Y., 
echoed 
a 
similar 

sentiment in another interview 
on the same day. Beyond the 
eye-catching headlines about a 
feud between the commander 
in chief and members of Gold 
Star families — and a circus of 
punditry about indecency that 
should no longer be shocking to 
anyone anymore — the timing 
of such a display of ignorance 
reflects something frightening. 
This country’s military spending 
is out of control, and the only 
people who can rein it in are 
either too scared or too oblivious 
to even bring it up for debate.

Last 
Thursday 
night, 
the 

Senate 
passed 
its 
budget 

resolution for the fiscal year 
2018 by a vote of 51-49. Though 
this vote may not have been 
surrounded 
by 
as 
much 

media coverage as the health 
care vote was in July, it was 
equally 
dramatic. 
Perennial 

nonconformist Sen. Rand Paul, 
R-Ky., broke ranks with his party 
to oppose the measure, eliciting 
an avalanche of criticism from 
his Republican colleagues. His 
opposition was based primarily 
in $43 billion of increased 
military spending that would 
use a loophole to exceed limits 
set in 2011. Not one of his 51 
fellow members of the GOP, all 
of whom no doubt campaign on 
that phrase conservatives so like 
to use — “balancing the budget” 
— seemed to agree.

In doing so, Paul solidified 

his position as one of the few 
members of Congress who has 
not rolled over in the face of 
President 
Trump’s 
massive 

hikes in military spending. In 
September, he was one of only 
eight senators to vote against 

the administration’s 
$700 billion defense 
policy bill, which 
included 
increased 

funding 
nearly 

across 
the 
board, 

shelling out billions 
at 
a 
time. 
This 

group 
included 

five (yes, only five) 
Democrats. 
The 

rest of the so-called 
liberal 
opposition 

party took out their rubber 
stamps 
and 
issued 
bland 

statements about how proud they 
were to be supporting the brave 
men and women of our military.

I’d like to pause here for a 

minute and make clear that I, 
too, respect these brave men 
and women. I appreciate their 
service and all that they do to 
make this country, and in many 
cases the world, a safer place. 
Furthermore, I’m neither an 
isolationist nor a pacifist. I 
understand the importance of a 
global U.S. presence, and I’m not 
advocating for an end to defense 
spending. But a few things need 
to be established.

First of all, the Republicans 

who 
champion 
these 
hikes 

should no longer be permitted to 
brand themselves as champions 
of fiscal conservatism. Writing 
checks for billions of dollars 
at a time to expand a sector 
that already accounts for such 
an enormous portion of the 
national budget and claiming 
prudence are mutually exclusive 
actions. 
Defense 
spending 

was only just projected to be 
returning to peacetime levels 
thanks to de-escalation in Iraq 
and 
Afghanistan, 
but 
these 

developments show that it is 
poised to climb back up. These 
are the same officials who 
target 
funding 
for 
National 

Public Radio and the National 
Endowment for the Arts in their 
efforts to rein in spending, which 
is a bit like buying a Rolls Royce 
and then complaining that the $3 
air freshener you bought to hang 
from the rearview mirror is what 
broke the bank.

Second of all, Democrats must 

be made to answer for these votes 
in the future. With the exception 
of 
the 
five 
aforementioned 

senators — Bernie Sanders, 
D-Vt.; 
Kirstin 
Gillibrand, 

D-N.Y.; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; 
Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; and Ron 

Wyden, D-Ore. — all 43 others, 
many of whom have hopes 
for 2020, need to explain how 
approving this runaway train 
works toward a more progressive 
future with better jobs, better 
health care and better education.

Democratic primary voters 

should remember this vote in 
three years as they evaluate 
names like Elizabeth Warren, 
D-Mass.; 
Kamala 
Harris, 

D-Calif.; 
and 
Cory 
Booker, 

D-N.J. In a broader sense, is 
the party really so inept that it 
cannot formulate an argument 
that says simply, “We respect 
the military as much as the next 
guy, but sometimes the more 
patriotic thing to do is to spend 
that dollar in a classroom and not 
researching self-driving tanks?” 

Finally, the shocking lack 

of oversight is unsustainable. 
There’s not much to say here 
other 
than 
if 
the 
military 

expects nearly a trillion dollars 
of taxpayer money to be at its 
disposal on an annual basis, it’s not 
too much to ask for senators on the 
Committee of Armed Services to 
know where that money and those 
troops are going.

In 
the 
Declaration 
of 

Independence, 
in 
between 

grievances about taxation and 
representation, one of the most 
severe charges against King George 
III was that he had “render(ed) 
the Military independent of and 
superior to the Civil Power.” This 
foundational skepticism played a 
pivotal role in the formation of the 
executive branch and the status 
of the president as a civilian 
commander in chief. Essential to 
American democracy is the idea 
that the military reports to us.

Today, I cannot even write an 

article questioning an increase 
in defense spending without 
feeling as if I need to include 
a 
paragraph 
qualifying 
my 

respect for the troops. Hawkish 
politicians funnel money into the 
armed services at historic levels, 
nearly without a second thought. 
Our military is romanticized, 
idealized and elevated to the 
point that its entitlement to 
nearly 20 percent of the national 
budget is a given and to question it 
would be considered unpatriotic. 
The Senate just approved more 
money for military action its 
members don’t even know is 
taking place. That skepticism is 
gone. We need it back.

Brett Graham can be reached at 

btgraham@umich.edu.

BRETT 

GRAHAM

MICHELLE 
PHILLIPS

Michelle Phillips can be reached at 

mphi@umich.edu. 

SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK

The Opinion section has created a space in The Michigan Daily for 

first-person accounts of sexual assault and its corresponding personal, 
academic and legal implications. Submission information can be found at 

https://tinyurl.com/survivespeak.

