The Only Thing You Need to Know About Kate’s Law Is Its Name

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Here’s a nearly unbreakable law of legislating: anything named _____’s Law is a bad idea. It’s a flashing neon sign that says the proposed law is an emotional response to a single incident and will probably do more harm than good. With that in mind, the only good news in the Matt Ford story below is that this is the first I’ve heard of it:

In July, a group of legislators introduced the Establishing Mandatory Minimums for Illegal Reentry Act of 2015, popularly known as Kate’s Law. On Wednesday, the U.S. Sentencing Commission estimated that Kate’s Law would expand the federal prison population by over 57,000 prisoners, according to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a nonprofit organization that supporters sentencing reform.

Kate’s Law is named after Kate Steinle, who died on July 1 after being shot on Pier 14 in San Francisco. Police arrested Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a Mexican national and convicted felon who was in the United States illegally, and charged him with Steinle’s murder. Lopez-Sanchez subsequently admitted to firing the gun, but claimed Steinle was not the target and that her death was accidental.

The Trump-esque idea behind this bill is to increase the mandatory minimum sentence for anyone who has been previously deported and then comes back. Currently the penalty is a fine or a maximum of two years imprisonment (or both). Under Kate’s Law, it would be a minimum of five years in prison. If the original deportation was due to committing a crime, the mandatory minimum is even higher. So what will this accomplish?

Despite the public rancor, immigrants are generally less likely to commit crimes than the native population, according to the The Wall Street Journal. Mandatory minimums are generally ineffective at reducing crime or recidivism. Anti-illegal-immigration advocates who complain about the burden on the American taxpayer might find a 28 percent increase in the federal prison budget counterproductive. But these are relatively minor points in the debate. What matters is the all-too-familiar refrain: Something must be done.

Over the past few years, the public has finally figured out that violent crime is way down, and this has opened the door for legislators to start thinking about criminal justice reform. Maybe we don’t need to fill our prisons to bursting with long sentences for every crime in the book. It’s an idea whose support is broad and bipartisan, but probably very shallow. As Kate’s Law suggests, all it takes is one high-profile incident and suddenly it’s time to get back on the mass incarceration bandwagon.

But like I said, this is the first I’ve heard of it. That might mean only that Fox News hasn’t really revved up yet, or it might mean that it’s such an obvious campaign gimmick (it’s the brainchild of Ted Cruz, naturally) that it doesn’t have much support in Congress. We can always hope.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend