Donald Trump signed the First Step Act

The argument

In 2018 Trump signed the First Step Act into law, a bipartisan piece of criminal justice reform, and this argument treats that enacted legislation rather than any stated intention as the evidence of what a president delivers on criminal justice. The Act made changes across the length of a sentence. It shortened mandatory minimum sentences for some offences, including narrowing the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing — a disparity long criticised for punishing chemically similar offences at different rates. It allowed judges to exercise greater discretion over sentencing for some offences, returning to the court the ability to weigh the circumstances of a particular case rather than applying a fixed term set in advance. It also addressed what happens after sentencing. Prisoners were allowed to earn time off their sentences through good conduct, which gives them something to gain from compliance, and the Act permitted the relocation of prisoners closer to home, alongside other measures easing re-entry to society — provisions aimed at the family contact and support that make life after release sustainable. Conditions for pregnant prisoners were improved. The results followed quickly. The Act led to the release of over 3,000 prisoners in July 2019 for good conduct, and 3,000 prisoners had their sentences shortened — concrete outcomes for identifiable people rather than projections. Its reception is the argument's final point. The Act was endorsed by Republicans and Democrats alike and is seen as a success from across the political spectrum, so it cannot be dismissed as a partisan measure claimed only by its own side. On this argument, a president who signed reform of that scope and had it recognised by both parties is the better choice on criminal justice.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The First Step Act was a criminal justice reform welcomed from all sides of the political spectrum, but it is wrong to give Trump the credit for it. The Act was largely a product of Republican and Democratic members of Congress, building on efforts to introduce criminal justice reform that began under Obama's presidency. There is also very little other evidence from Trump's track record that he supports the measures of the First Step Act - his tough on crime stance has often involved calls for harsher sentencing and the return of the death penalty for federal inmates. In 2016, he criticised Obama for releasing prisoners "by the thousands", which is exactly what the Act has done under his administration.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise builds the conclusion into itself: enacting one reform is not the same as being better for criminal justice, which requires comparing whole records rather than a single Act. [Rejecting P2] The Act's content is described accurately but its authorship is not — it was drafted and driven by members of both parties in Congress, building on reform efforts that predated the administration, as the counter notes. [Rejecting P3] The results are real but partial, and are set against the same administration's calls for harsher sentencing and its resumption of federal executions, neither of which the argument weighs.