Anthony ‘Ant’ Smith shouldn’t be going to prison. Outdated federal sentencing policies are to blame.

In November, supporters of a former teacher being sentenced for his actions during the 2020 uprisings following George Floyd’s murder packed the pews of a small federal courtroom near Independence Mall. So many family members, friends, colleagues, and former students showed up, court officials herded people into an overflow room one floor below, where they watched the proceedings on television screens.

An estimated 200 people were there, a number virtually unheard of for cases not involving a celebrity.

On the docket that day: the sentencing for Anthony “Ant” Smith.

Smith had already pleaded guilty to one felony count of obstructing law enforcement during a civil disorder. On that November day, Judge Juan Sánchez would decide his punishment.

To do so, Judge Sánchez would have to go back more than three years to May 30, 2020, when thousands of Philadelphians flooded Center City — as people did in cities across the country — demanding justice for yet another Black man killed at the hands of police.

I was in Center City that night, working as a reporter. I saw firsthand a mass release of emotions — over George Floyd, over generations of Black men and women subjected to police violence. An electricity buzzed through the air.

That night, Smith helped flip a vacant police car. Someone else set the car ablaze. Smith tossed two pieces of paper into the flames. He was charged with arson, even though he wasn’t accused of lighting the car on fire.

The case captured the attention of many Philadelphians, in part because of Smith’s prominence as a leader in the local movement against police brutality. His arrest, nearly five months after the incident, came right around the time Philadelphia Magazine celebrated him as one of the “76 Most Influential People in Philadelphia” for his activism, as one of the lead organizers for the Philadelphia Coalition for Racial Economic and Legal Justice.

Just before he was arrested, Smith became a lead plaintiff in a civil rights lawsuit against the city over the police use of tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets during the protests. (In March, the city agreed to pay $9.25 million in damages to 350 protesters.)

Many, including myself, saw Smith’s arrest as a political move by then-U.S. Attorney William McSwain, a Trump appointee.

Still, at Smith’s sentencing hearing, Judge Sánchez sentenced him to a year and a day in federal custody. This was far less than what prosecutors asked and less than the nearly five years given to two other men also convicted of burning the police car.

But it still feels like a profound injustice, which serves no one. All because of outdated sentencing guidelines and a dearth of alternatives to incarceration in the federal system.

Since that incendiary night in 2020, I left my career in journalism and became a mitigation specialist on criminal defense teams. I research and write my clients’ life stories to humanize them before the court, giving context to the crime they are accused of committing. I worked with Smith’s criminal defense team, conducting hours of interviews with him and his loved ones. I can say without reservation that he is not a threat to his community.

Instead, Smith has dedicated his life to serving it.

Smith comes from humble roots, attended Philly public schools, and, as a first-generation college student, found his calling to build community. His work as an educator and community organizer in young adulthood blossomed, earning an award for his service from the Mayor’s Office in 2018.

But the federal system utilizes sentencing guidelines and laws designed during the tough-on-crime era that have remained largely unchanged since the 1980s. Under federal statutes, Smith’s original charges — aiding and abetting the arson of an unoccupied police vehicle — require at least five years of incarceration as a mandatory minimum sentence. Smith and his peers ended up pleading guilty to lesser charges of civil disorder, but the government asked that the judge follow the sentencing guidelines for arson, even though he did not plead guilty to those charges. The requested sentence? A total of 30-37 months in a federal penitentiary.

» READ MORE: Too many Philly police are no-shows in court, derailing cases and undermining our justice system | Opinion

I was in the courtroom for his sentencing. I listened as friends, family, and colleagues testified about how he has helped his community, including fellow activists, former colleagues, and elected officials.

One of his former students told the judge that when she entered Smith’s classroom as a 20-year-old, she suffered from severe depression and social anxiety. Because of his mentorship, she said, she is now working, enrolled in community college, and volunteers in her neighborhood every Saturday, bringing material goods to people in need.

Unfortunately, these testimonies weren’t enough.

Smith is going to prison because he was charged by federal prosecutors instead of state prosecutors, who don’t follow the same sentencing guidelines. In state court, it would have been well within the guidelines — and sentencing norms — for him to receive a sentence of house arrest or probation, or enter a diversion program to drop the charges altogether after completing community service, for instance.

A prison sentence — and the $40,000 annual price tag, paid by taxpayers — makes no sense for someone like Smith. From 2020 to his plea hearing last June, he spent nearly three years on house arrest. He never violated his rules of supervision, excelled in his teaching career, and kept up with regular volunteering commitments of his own volition. Every Friday he distributed free food by an El stop in West Philly with the anti-hunger group Food Not Bombs. In an alternate universe, his conduct would have fulfilled the requirements of a diversion program, and he would be in front of a classroom today.

Yet, this kind of diversion program does not appear to exist in the federal Eastern District of Pennsylvania, nor does it in about two-thirds of the country’s 94 federal jurisdictions — despite explicit instructions from U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland over a year ago for all federal districts to develop a pretrial diversion program. But here, like many other jurisdictions, the message hasn’t gotten through.

Putting people like Smith in federal custody serves nobody, and will almost certainly cause harm. People like him have a spark inside of them, which enables him to fight for his ideals and inspires those around him to do the same. People like Smith bring light and energy to their community and make the world a better place. I fear federal prison could extinguish that spark forever.

Our state courts have moved toward a more just and less punitive system. Our federal courts need to catch up.

Maura Ewing is a criminal defense mitigation specialist.