Though it was quickly overshadowed by developments in Egypt and Syria and new revelations of domestic surveillance by the NSA, a proposal last week from the Obama administration was greeted by Republicans with an unusual reaction — silence, even agreement. In today’s hyperpartisan atmosphere, it’s worth noting when both ends of the political spectrum can agree.

In this case, the issue is overcrowded prisons and mandatory sentencing. In a speech to the American Bar Association, Attorney General Eric Holder pressed for changes in sentencing laws, suggesting harsh, mandatory sentencing rules have proven ineffective, with sometimes crazy, even cruel results.

America imprisons a higher percentage of its population than any other country in the world. China and Russia, not known as soft on crime or lenient societies, have lower imprisonment rates than the United States. The Economist magazine notes that in 2011, one in 107 American adults was in prison — and one of every 34 adults was under “correctional supervision” that year, meaning locked up or on probation or parole.

The costs of a “lock ’em up and throw away the key” mentality is high — in both dollars and lives.

Holder summarized the situation, saying, “Too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no truly good law enforcement reasons.”

In recent years, agreement on this issue has emerged from both sides of the aisle. Conservatives, traditionally supporting a tough-on-crime agenda, see that prison costs are unsustainable and straining state and city budgets. They can also see that the current system is not really effective at reducing crime. Liberals, focusing more on the human costs of America’s “lock ’em up” culture, argue there are better alternatives for dealing with crime.

U.S. prison populations began to surge in the 1980s and ’90s, after public sentiment backed “tough on crime” politicians. Efforts to get violent criminals off the streets also put many nonviolent offenders in prison for far too long.

While Americans generally supported a tougher approach to crime, the prison-industrial complex also backed the movement. The union representing prison guards in California actively pushed for “three-strikes” laws because tough sentences meant more prisons had to be built, creating more prison guard jobs and dues-paying members. But now, mass imprisonment is a burden on California’s budget, as it is on the budgets of most other states.

Holder suggests giving judges discretion to sentence based on the specifics of the case — and not be locked into mandatory minimum sentencing. He also wants to see released prisoners get more help re-entering society, including removing some unnecessary restrictions on finding housing and employment. He also argued that many elderly prisoners could be released early, to reduce prison costs.

Addressing the mandatory sentencing issue, Holder suggested that non-violent, low-level drug offenders with no ties to gangs or organized crime should be given shorter sentences and provided treatment rather than long, no-parole prison terms.

Federal prisons hold only 10 percent of America’s prison population, so Holder’s reforms, even if enacted, would have limited impact on the total prison population. But his message is worth talking about — and about half the states have already begun to move toward shorter sentences or alternatives to years behind bars, particularly for non-violent drug offenders. That approach also typically involves additional treatment services and closer post-release monitoring with support services. Such reforms are humane — and can save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Holder’s ideas, already happening in many states, and which appeal to conservatives and liberals, albeit for different reasons, deserve public support. Sentencing reform saves dollars and causes less damage to lives than the current system.