By PRFSU Writers 2023-2024 
Johana Dauphin
Mass incarceration is a uniquely American phenomenon, with the United States having the highest rate of incarceration in the world. The scope and complexity of mass incarceration necessitates a multifaceted approach to address the issue effectively. Police, prosecutors, and judges are among the actors who have the ability to effect change. However, it is crucial not to underestimate the immense influence a president can have in shaping the culture and policies that impact day-to-day life. By comparing policies and outcomes of elected leaders, it becomes possible to see which approaches each President, and therefore their party, believe are effective in changing our criminal justice system. Analyzing the policies of previous presidents will also help to determine both what is possible and if the goal of altering the criminal justice system is more than just a campaign soundbite. From the Obama administration forward, what progress has been made?
Obama Administration (2009-2017)
The Obama Administration implemented several policies aimed at reducing mass incarceration and addressing racial disparities in the criminal justice system, having some of the most extensive criminal justice reform of any American president. These range from bills that Obama stated would reduce bias sentencing disparities as with the Fair Sentencing Act to initiatives aimed at lowering recidivism rates as with the National Reentry Resource Center and the Second Chance Pell Pilot Program. Other measures include the Smart on Crime Initiative which focused on serious, violent crimes and decreased prosecution rates of non-violent and low-level criminal offenses. It also decreased the usage of drug-related mandatory minimum sentences and provided incarceration alternatives for non-violent drug offenders. Obama promoted the “ban the box” initiative regarding federal job applications with a stated goal that people who have been convicted of a crime can have a second chance at life and reduce the likelihood of recidivism. President Obama also directly commuted the sentences of 1,715 offenders.
Trump Administration (2017-2020)
In contrast to the Obama administration, the Trump administration did not make decreasing incarceration rates a major priority. His administration took a “law and order” and “tough on crime” approach. For example, Attorney General Jeff Sessions made several policy changes during his tenure that aimed to crack down on crime. Among them were the elimination of some police training requirements. Additionally, he rescinded an Obama-era memo that instructed prosecutors to avoid charges for low-level drug offenders that could result in lengthy mandatory minimums. Instead, Sessions directed prosecutors to “pursue the most serious, readily provable offense” even in low-level drug crime cases. He also urged prosecutors to consider the death penalty for cases involving large quantities of drugs. Finally, Sessions attempted to crack down on marijuana in states where it was legal, a move that was later abandoned by the Trump administration. The Trump administration also reinstated DOJ contracts with private prisons, which the previous administration had tried to eliminate, and disbanded an initiative to create educational programs in federal prisons.
Other criminal justice reform initiatives that were implemented were the First Step Act, a bipartisan bill that expanded the discretion of judges to be able to ignore mandatory minimum sentences in some cases, increased job training programs, and shortened the sentences of some inmates.
Biden Administration (2021-Present)
In a manner similar to Obama’s presidency, Joe Biden made criminal justice reform a priority promising to focus on reducing mass incarceration, racial and socioeconomic disparities, and centering rehabilitation. In his two years as president, he has made some progress toward keeping said campaign promises. In October of 2022, Biden pardoned thousands with federal convictions of simple marijuana possession and urged state governors to do the same. Biden’s nominees for the lower federal courts and other enforcers of justice include over 60% people of color and 75% of them are women. Some have promoted these diverse nominees as a group that he hopes will address implicit biases within the criminal justice system by bringing in a wider range of perspectives and experiences and allowing the justice system to be more reflective of America. The ability to apply mandatory minimum penalties in federal courts has also been limited. A major aspect of the Biden administration’s approach to criminal justice reform is the stated emphasis placed on fixing the underlying causes of crime by expanding access to mental health services and improving the education system. Biden sees things like increasing the funding for Title 1 schools and expanding access to pre-K as investments in the future generation as deterring people from crime before they begin. This also includes efforts to reduce the recidivism rate by expanding the scope of job and educational reentry programs. The Biden administration aspires to take on drug policies by eliminating the crack and powder cocaine disparity that was narrowed under the Obama administration and also by decriminalizing cannabis, applying it retroactively. More direct policies the Biden administration has pledged to implement include wider police reform, particularly regarding misconduct and excessive use of force, and measures to address racial biases in both policing and the court system.
Conclusion
The past three presidential administrations have been characterized by varying degrees of commitment to criminal justice reform. While Obama’s policies reflected his more optimistic and far-reaching approach to criminal justice reform, Trump’s policies were more specific in scope with a focus on being “tough on crime”. So far Biden has attempted to both carry the torch from the Obama administration while also going a step further in tackling the issue of police reform. It remains to be seen whether Biden will be successful in carrying out the specifics of his criminal justice reform agenda, but it is clear that no matter the administration, the systemic issues that affect the daily lives of citizens can be intensified or mitigated by the choices the voting public makes in electing a president.