Category: Criminal justice reform

When the prison boom goes bust

By Alan Bean

Scott Henson’s Grits for Breakfast blog offered a couple of terrific posts over the weekend.  “Private prisons and faux privatization” was inspired by a Forbes piece in which E. D. Kain asserts that running prisons is a government responsibility even if the work is subcontracted to a private prison company.

Thus any ‘privatization’ that occurs is simply the transfer of the provision of a government service (in this case, incarceration) to a private contractor. The contractor still operates with the full force of the law. In other words, it’s still government, just government-for-hire or for-profit government.

If there is any saving to the tax payer it is only because private prisons pay their workers less than state-run prisons.  Since this translates into less capable workers nothing of value is gained and much is lost.

“Texas prison  boom going bust” argues that county commissioners in small Texas towns can no longer build lock-ups far exceeding local needs on the assumption that a steadily growing prison population will fill the excess beds.

Jail-bed supply significantly exceeds demand statewide. With the exception of immigration detention, the bubble has burst. As has, hopefully, the “jail as profit center” myth among Texas county commissioners.

Prison privatization and the proliferation of the The Texas Gulag are two of the primary symptoms of America’s failed attempt to make crime pay.  Public officials have believed for years that everybody wins when we lock up more people this year than we did last year. Small towns get jobs; private prison companies slash wages and rake in profits, politicians get campaign contributions from the private prison industry and jobs in that sector when they leave politics.  Who could ask for anything more? (more…)

“Stop-and-frisk” tactics and racial profiling in New York

By Melanie Wilmoth

Although New York City is 29 percent Latino and 25 percent Black, Al Baker reports that a shocking 85 percent of individuals stopped by New York City police are Latino or Black. In 2008, the New York Police Department’s “stop-and-frisk” tactics and the racial disparities associated with them, prompted the Center for Constitutional Rights to file a suit alleging the use of racial profiling by city police. Recently, lawyers representing the city attempted to dismiss the case. Yesterday, however, Judge Shira Scheindlin rejected the lawyers’ efforts, ruling that there was enough substantial evidence to carry on with a trial.

In her book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, Michelle Alexander describes the development of stop-and-frisk policies:

Once upon a time, it was generally understood that the police could not stop and search someone without a warrant unless there was probable cause to believe that the individual was engaged in criminal activity. That was a basic Fourth Amendment principle. In Terry v. Ohio, decided in 1968, the Supreme Court modified that understanding, but only modestly, by ruling that if and when a police officer observes unusual conduct by someone the officer reasonably believes to be dangerous and engaged in criminal activity, the officer “is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area” to conduct a limited search to “discover weapons that might be used against the officer.” Known as the stop-and-frisk rule, the Terry decision stands for the proposition that, so long as a police officer has “reasonable articulable suspicion” that someone is engaged in criminal activity and dangerous, it is constitutionally permissible to stop, question, and frisk him or her — even in the absence of probable cause.

…In the years since Terry, stops, interrogations, and searches of ordinary people driving down the street, walking home from the bus stop, or riding the train, have become commonplace — at least for people of color.

As Alexander points out, the Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio set a legal precedent, making it permissible for police to search individuals without probable cause. (more…)

Corruption investigation rocks Tulsa Police Department

Justice for all?

By Melanie Wilmoth

I haven’t heard much news about the corruption investigation of the Tulsa Police Department (TPD) that has been developing over the past few years. This case should be a national scandal. But it’s not.

The media coverage of this story has been lacking to say the least. A quick internet search for information resulted in only a handful of articles, and the few media outlets that are covering the story are almost exclusively local news sources.

The corruption investigation involves several TPD officers and one federal agent who for years used their positions of power to steal money from drug dealers, falsify search warrants, fabricate drug buys, traffick drugs, and manipulate informant testimony in drug cases. The federal investigation began with a tip from a drug dealer, Debra Clayton, who claimed that she sold drugs for TPD officers from spring 2007 to fall 2008. During this time, Clayton recorded conversations between herself and the officers. It was those recordings that led the FBI to investigate. (more…)

Faith as an Engine of Criminal Justice Reform

By Harinder Singh

With all attention currently on the debt ceiling in the US, the faith community is calling on leadership to save money through addressing the wasteful costs of incarcerating 2.3 million Americans.

On June 16, 2011, I joined a cadre of 23 interfaith religious leaders from throughout the US in support of the National Criminal Justice Commission Act in visiting our congressional representatives and the White House.  I met with representatives from Texas and California in their offices on Capitol Hill as part of a fly-in organized by the Faith in Action Working Group of the Justice Roundtable. I participated in this critical action because correcting injustices in our prison systems needs to be a state and national priority, fueled especially by all who claim to be driven by religious convictions. An avenue for this type of reform lies in the proposed creation of the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2011 (S. 306) (NCJCA), which was introduced with bipartisan support in 2011 by Senator Jim Webb. Members of the Commission would be appointed by the legislative and executive branch and would be charged with undertaking comprehensive critical examination of America’s criminal justice system.

The portion of the bill I would like to focus on today– Section 5(b) — reads as follows: “The Commission shall make findings… and recommendations for changes in oversight, policies, practices, and laws designed to prevent, deter, and reduce crime and violence, reduce recidivism, improve cost-effectiveness, and ensure the interests of justice at every step of the criminal justice system.”

This Commission represents a real chance to address a statistic that won’t go away: The US accounts for 5% of the world’s population, yet locks up 25% of the world’s prisoners. Existing practices too often incarcerate people whose rehabilitation would be best served by access to recovery programs—not imprisonment, and rob resources from addressing high-risk, violent offenders who pose the real threat to our communities.  (more…)

UK Seeks Bill Bratton’s Policing Advice

By Melanie Wilmoth

Jamilah King gives her take on the UK’s plan to contract with former Los Angeles police chief, Bill Bratton.

Having served in the New York, Los Angeles, and Boston Police Departments, Bratton certainly has a significant amount of experience. He is well-known for his “zero-tolerance” policing and his belief that punishing smaller, nonviolent offenses such as loitering, vandalism, and drug possession will prevent more serious offenses from being committed in the future. However, this type of policing tends to significantly increase prison populations. As King points out, “in Bratton’s first year as police commissioner in New York, juvenile arrests jumped to over 98,000 from just over 20,000 the previous year.”

Rather than addressing the systemic factors that contribute to high crime rates such as unemployment, low-quality public education, and poverty, we rely on punishment to “solve” our social problems. It is this punitive consensus that contributes to prison overpopulation and stymies the development of alternatives to mass incarceration.

Here is what King has to say:

The U.S. Is Still Recovering from ‘Supercop’ Bill Bratton’s Policing

By Jamilah King

When British Prime Minister David Cameron announced plans to contract former LAPD chief Bill Bratton to help sort through the ashes of that country’s worst urban rebellion in recent memory, the connection seemed obvious. Los Angeles is the U.S. city perhaps most synonymous with urban rage, and many credit Bratton for the city’s drop in violent crime that began in 2002. Never mind, say critics, that the the city’s response to its rioting was deeply flawed, or that Bratton himself was nearly a decade removed from its most recent uprising, which happened in 1992. (more…)

Federal law scales back crack sentences

By Victoria Frayre

It’s official. Well . . .  almost. With the passing of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which ultimately admitted how big of a FAIL the “War onDrugs” has been, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has decided to retroactively apply the law to inmates convicted of federal crack related crimes prior to 2010. Unless Congress intervenes by October, retroactively applying the law could potentially reduce sentences for some 12 thousand federal inmates, 85% ofwhom are African-American.

The average reduced sentence will cut off approximately 3 years of jail time for most inmates, although a judge and lawyer, most of whom are public defenders, will bear the brunt of pushing paperwork through thecourts for prisoners seeking reductions. And what about violent crack relatedoffenders? How will releasing convicts back into society effect the safety ofthe general public? What about recidivism rates of freshly released prisoners? Will most released prisoners end up back in jail? (more…)

Grover Norquist’s America

By Alan Bean
In a recent post, I suggested that Carrollton, Mississippi, a town that proudly flies the Conderate flag outside its courthouse, reflects the soul of America.  Charles Kiker, my esteemed father-in-law, calls that an overstatement.  This op-ed from Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick illuminates my audacious thesis.  As Patrick notes, small government fundamentalism has captured the conservative movement and, to a large extent, the conservative movement has captured American politics.
True, a Democrat is in the White House and the Senate remains blue.  But anyone who listened to President Obama trying to adopt a tough stance with Republicans the other day will realize that Grover Norquist’s intention has been realized: Democratic presidents can no longer govern as Democrats.  Obama was trying to come on strong, but he sounded scared to death.  Conservatives control the moral consensus of the nation and the President knows it. (more…)

Jimmy Carter: Call Off the Global Drug War

This op-ed in the NY Times from President Jimmy Carter speaks for itself.  Now, if we can just get Bill Clinton to admit that he extended Ronald
Reagan’s militaristic solution to the drug probelm, we might be getting somewhere.  AGB

Call Off the Global Drug War

By JIMMY CARTER
Published: June 16, 2011

//

Atlanta

IN an extraordinary new initiative announced earlier this month, the Global Commission on Drug Policy has made some courageous and profoundly important recommendations in a report on how to bring more effective control over the illicit drug trade. The commission includes the former presidents or prime ministers of five countries, a former secretary general of the United Nations, human rights leaders, and business and government leaders, including Richard Branson, George P. Shultz and Paul A. Volcker.

The report describes the total failure of the present global antidrug effort, and in particular America’s “war on drugs,” which was declared 40 years ago today. It notes that the global consumption of opiates has increased 34.5 percent, cocaine 27 percent and cannabis 8.5 percent from 1998 to 2008. Its primary recommendations are to substitute treatment for imprisonment for people who use drugs but do no harm to others, and to concentrate more coordinated international effort on combating violent criminal organizations rather than nonviolent, low-level offenders.

These recommendations are compatible with United States drug policy from three decades ago. In a message to Congress in 1977, I said the country should decriminalize the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, with a full program of treatment for addicts. I also cautioned against filling our prisons with young people who were no threat to society, and summarized by saying: “Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself.”

These ideas were widely accepted at the time. But in the 1980s President Ronald Reagan and Congress began to shift from balanced drug policies, including the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts, toward futile efforts to control drug imports from foreign countries.

This approach entailed an enormous expenditure of resources and the dependence on police and military forces to reduce the foreign cultivation of marijuana, coca and opium poppy and the production of cocaine and heroin. One result has been a terrible escalation in drug-related violence, corruption and gross violations of human rights in a growing number of Latin American countries.

The commission’s facts and arguments are persuasive. It recommends that governments be encouraged to experiment “with models of legal regulation of drugs … that are designed to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens.” For effective examples, they can look to policies that have shown promising results in Europe, Australia and other places.

But they probably won’t turn to the United States for advice. Drug policies here are more punitive and counterproductive than in other democracies, and have brought about an explosion in prison populations. At the end of 1980, just before I left office, 500,000 people were incarcerated in America; at the end of 2009 the number was nearly 2.3 million. There are 743 people in prison for every 100,000 Americans, a higher portion than in any other country and seven times as great as in Europe. Some 7.2 million people are either in prison or on probation or parole — more than 3 percent of all American adults!

Some of this increase has been caused by mandatory minimum sentencing and “three strikes you’re out” laws. But about three-quarters of new admissions to state prisons are for nonviolent crimes. And the single greatest cause of prison population growth has been the war on drugs, with the number of people incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses increasing more than twelvefold since 1980.

Not only has this excessive punishment destroyed the lives of millions of young people and their families (disproportionately minorities), but it is wreaking havoc on state and local budgets. Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pointed out that, in 1980, 10 percent of his state’s budget went to higher education and 3 percent to prisons; in 2010, almost 11 percent went to prisons and only 7.5 percent to higher education.

Maybe the increased tax burden on wealthy citizens necessary to pay for the war on drugs will help to bring about a reform of America’s drug policies. At least the recommendations of the Global Commission will give some cover to political leaders who wish to do what is right.

A few years ago I worked side by side for four months with a group of prison inmates, who were learning the building trade, to renovate some public buildings in my hometown of Plains, Ga. They were intelligent and dedicated young men, each preparing for a productive life after the completion of his sentence. More than half of them were in prison for drug-related crimes, and would have been better off in college or trade school.

To help such men remain valuable members of society, and to make drug policies more humane and more effective, the American government should support and enact the reforms laid out by the Global Commission on Drug Policy.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, is the founder of the Carter Center and the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

Will lowered federal penalties for crack cocaine be retroactive?

By Victoria Frayre

Imagine being sentenced to prison for life for possession of crack cocaine and then one day being given the possibility of a reduced sentence or possibly even an eventual release. How would this change your life and the lives of your family and friends?

This could be an eventual reality for thousands of prisoners currently serving disproportionately longer sentences for possession of crack cocaine as compared to those caught with powder cocaine. (more…)

Banning Books in Prison

By Chaka Holley

Many were shocked when Gary Indiana, a decaying city with a population of 100,000, announced the closing of the city’s main library. Due to budget cuts, the library board voted 4-3 to close the bankrupted city’s main branch. The public response was not in favor of this decision.  For many, the public library was their only access to books and other resources.

Gary is not alone; prisons are also limiting access to reading materials. These limits are not due to budget cuts however, but to prohibition.  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing South Carolina’s Berkeley County Jail for prohibiting all books outside of the Bible. In Connecticut, the department of corrections is following suit. Similarly, other prisons around the country are also under scrutiny for banning books. (more…)