Gov. Bill Lee allowed a bill that would lead to more incarceration to become law Friday, May 6, after declining to sign or veto it.

The tough-on-crime bill, known as “truth in sentencing,” was one of Republican lawmakers’ top priorities of the legislative session that ended in late April. It would end early release for several crimes, requiring convicted people to serve 100% of their sentences.

Lee, who frequently promotes his service with a faith-based reentry program and made criminal justice reform a central part of his campaign, was not enthusiastic about “truth in sentencing.” He never came out against it, but he won some concessions, keeping early release somewhat intact for some of the covered crimes, dropping that 100% mandatory sentence down to 85%.

Drew Rainer’s father advocates for ‘truth in sentencing,’ but governor’s support in doubt

“My concern with (this bill) is that data does not support the basic premise of the legislation,” Lee wrote in a May 5 letter to Lt. Gov. Randy McNally (R-Oak Ridge) and House Speaker Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville).

“Similar legislation has been enacted before and resulted in significant operational and financial strain, with no reduction in crime,” Lee, a Republican, continued. “Widespread evidence suggests that this policy will result in more victims, higher recidivism, increased crime and prison overcrowding, all with an increased cost to taxpayers.”

But his refusal to sign it is only symbolic.

Friday was Lee’s deadline to act after the General Assembly sent it to him April 25. He could have stopped the bill by vetoing it, but the overwhelmingly Republican supermajority would almost certainly have had the votes to override that veto and make it law anyway.

Supporters of the bill say it provides more peace of mind for victims, as well as deterrence, honesty and accountability for criminals.

“You can protect criminals or you can protect victims,” Sexton said in a statement. “Sometimes, we need to use common-sense approaches; more violent criminals in jail for longer periods means less crime and fewer victims. Softer sentences mean more crime and more victims.”

State Rep. John Gillespie (R-Memphis) agreed.

“Tennesseans expect someone sentenced to 10 years in prison to be incarcerated for 10 years,” he wrote in a text to The Daily Memphian. “Criminal sentences must mean something, especially sentences for violent offenders.”

Opponents — many of whom are conservatives like Lee — say longer sentences don’t decrease recidivism, and that the state will get little return on the investment of millions of tax dollars required to keep more people locked up. They say the possibility of early release incentivizes positive behavior, and they call attention to the infamous federal crime bill of 1994.

State prisons are operating at over 90% capacity, according to the Tennessee Department of Correction. TDOC estimated the cost of the bill at about $96 million over a decade, before the bill was amended to allow some early release, according to an analysis provided by a spokeswoman.

Strickland pushes bill to give violent offenders longer sentences

The General Assembly Fiscal Review Committee estimated the costs of the amended bill would rise each year, exceeding $25.4 million in fiscal year 2031-2032.

The state House overwhelmingly supported the bill, passing it 86-9 April 21, with most Democrats (including most from Memphis) in favor and only one Republican against.

The state Senate also passed it easily — 20-7, with three abstaining and three absent — but there was more dissent. Every Democrat voted against it, as did three Republicans.

This would not be Tennessee’s first mandatory-minimum sentencing law, as Lee mentioned in his letter. In the 1980s, Gov. Lamar Alexander signed a similar bill into law.

David Raybin, one of the lawyers who crafted that law in the Alexander administration, testified to a General Assembly committee in March that he regretted it. Raybin, now a prominent criminal defense lawyer in Nashville and active with the Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said it led to overcrowding, riots, millions of dollars in damage to state property and a consent decree requiring federal oversight of Tennessee’s prisons.

One of the law’s most notable opponents is former Correction Commissioner Tony Parker, who spent nearly his whole career at TDOC.

“I get that they’ve committed a crime,” he said in a March interview with WPLN, Nashville’s NPR station. “There’s a penalty they have to pay, and that’s going to a place where it separates them from society.”

He continued: “But the job and the true mission of corrections is to take that person from day one and focus on reentry, because 95% will be returning to a community that we all live in and love and want to make sure that we take care of. The best way to do that for a correctional employee is to use the tools that you have, the incentives, the programs and prepare that person to reenter society. When you manipulate that formula and take away the tools, it’s not good for public safety — absolutely not.”

The American Conservative Union, which organizes the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, also opposes the bill, on the grounds that it’s a waste of money and it’s not conservative.

“Of course, no one is arguing that people should be given a pass for wrongdoing,” the ACU’s Patrick Plein wrote in a letter to Tennessee’s top lawmakers. “Those who break the law must be held accountable for their actions. The counter is that if we fail to provide incentives, prisons will remain mere warehouses of humanity. Those returning will be no better than when they went in.”

One of the law’s supporters is Andy Rainer, the father of Drew Rainer, the Rhodes College student who was killed last year.

“This person chose not to take advantage of the many advantages given to him to reform his life and, in my opinion, he should have been in prison,” Rainer said at a legislative hearing earlier this year. “If this law had been in effect, I would not be here today.”