Kentuckians Expecting Effective Criminal Justice (Sentencing, Corrections), KEEJ

I was wrong about the War on Drugs. It is a failure. by Bob Barr

2008-06-11T05:36:00.000+13:00

I'll admit it, just five years ago I was "Public Enemy Number 1" in the eyes of the Libertarian Party. In my 2002 congressional race for Georgia's Seventh District, the Libertarian Party ran scathing attack ads against my stand on Medical Marijuana.

Today, I am their presidential nominee and will represent libertarians at the top of the ticket on November 4th.

Huh?

That's right, Bob Barr, formerly the War on Drugs loving, Wiccan mocking, Clinton impeaching Republican is the presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party.

Now, you may be asking how this happened and my answer is simple: "The libertarians won."

For more than three decades, the Libertarian Party and small "l" libertarians have done their part to prove to America that liberty is the answer to most of the problems that we face today. Over the past several years, I was one of the many people influenced by this small party.

Whether through the free market or by simply allowing families to make their own decisions regarding the education of their children, libertarians have taught us that liberty does truly work.

In stark contrast, when government attempts to solve our societal problems, it tends to create even more of them, often increasing the size and depth of the original problem. A perfect example of this is the federal War on Drugs.

For years, I served as a federal prosecutor and member of the House of Representatives defending the federal pursuit of the drug prohibition.

Today, I can reflect on my efforts and see no progress in stopping the widespread use of drugs. I'll even argue that America's drug problem is larger today than it was when Richard Nixon first coined the phrase, "War on Drugs," in 1972.

America's drug problem is only compounded by the vast amounts of money directed at this ongoing battle. In 2005, more than $12 billion dollars was spent on federal drug enforcement efforts while another $30 billion was spent to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders.

The result of spending all of those taxpayer's dollars? We now have a huge incarceration tab for non-violent drug offenders and, at most, a 30% interception rate of hard drugs. We are also now plagued with the meth labs that are popping up like poisonous mushrooms across the country.

While it is clear the War on Drugs has been a failure, it is not enough to simply acknowledge that reality. We need to look for solutions that deal with the drug problem without costly and intrusive government agencies, and instead allow for private industry and organizations to put forward solutions that address the real problems.

One such solution was presented to me recently by a libertarian friend and supporter, Glenn Jacobs.

Glenn is a very unique guy with a very unique job. To say Glenn is a "big guy" or "intimidating" is an understatement. He gives people nightmares... literally.

Each week Glenn, who stands nearly seven feet tall, walks into a wrestling ring under the stage name "Kane" to beat other large men for sheer entertainment purposes.

Had I not pursued a career in politics -- and were about two feet taller -- I might have chosen a similar career path. Maybe...

In June of 2007, Glenn and many of his friends and co-workers in the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) were rocked by the news of the Chris Benoit tragedy that took place in my home state of Georgia.

It was speculated that Chris had murdered his family and committed suicide in a steroid or "roid" rage. While it is unclear how much of a role drugs played in Benoit's actions, and whether mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) may also have been a contributing factor, it was clear the WWE had some serious problems within its organization.

In the wake of the tragedy, the head of the WWE, Vince McMahon, and its other leaders looked internally to recognize these problems and address them. Although in the two years before Benoit's death, dozens of wrestlers had been suspended, gone to rehab, or been dismissed under the WWE's recently adopted "Wellness Program," the WWE strengthened its drug policy further, re-emphasizing that its policy wasn't merely a document, but the internal laws of the company that would be enforced.

Additionally, in response to speculation by brain trauma experts that Benoit may have been suffering from brain damage caused by years of blows to the head, WWE added a MTBI component to its Wellness Program.

McMahon didn't wait for Congress to pass a law or parade his wrestlers in front of congressional committee hearings; he took the lead and assumed responsibility over the health and welfare of the individuals who work for the WWE.

As part of the WWE Wellness Program, wrestlers go through regular drug testing and even cardiovascular testing. The latter identified a previously unknown heart condition for the wrestler "MVP" and he was treated for Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome. The government's War on Drugs wouldn't have done that.

Sadly, the long standing War on Drugs also did not save the life of Chris Benoit and his family. The truth is, only Chris could have saved himself through personal responsibility. However, the efforts of Vince McMahon are making progress in preventing other tragedies and harm.

The WWE is taking responsibility for its talent and giving its participants the resources that they need, through rehabilitation, testing and even anonymous help lines, to deal with any possible problems.

While there may be some employees of the organization who may not like random drug tests or being thrown on a treadmill for an EKG, they have the choice of finding a new employer.

That's the beauty of this libertarian solution. It does not take government intervention or our tax dollars. It also does not force anyone to do anything, as it only requires voluntary action and decisions.

While I applaud the WWE for taking on this responsibility with a libertarian solution, don't bother looking for me at an upcoming cage match on Friday Night Smackdown. I don't want to be responsible for hurting any of those little guys.

Fiscal stress causing some states to release inmates early

2008-05-06T06:14:00.000+13:00

Fiscal Pressures Lead Some States to Free Inmates Early

By Keith B. Richburg and Ashley Surdin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 5, 2008; A01

NEW YORK -- Reversing decades of tough-on-crime policies, including mandatory minimum prison sentences for some drug offenders, many cash-strapped states are embracing a view once dismissed as dangerously naive: It costs far less to let some felons go free than to keep them locked up.

It is a theory that has long been pushed by criminal justice advocates and liberal politicians -- that some felons, particularly those convicted of minor drug offenses, would be better served by treatment, parole or early release for good behavior. But the states' conversion to that view has less to do with a change of heart on crime than with stark fiscal realities. At a time of shrinking resources, prisons are eating up an increasing share of many state budgets.

"It's the fiscal stuff that's driving it," said Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group that advocates for more lenient sentencing. "Do you want to build prisons or do you want to build colleges? If you're a governor, it's kind of come to that choice right now."

Mauer and other observers point to a number of recent actions, some from states facing huge budget shortfalls, some not, but still worried about exploding costs.

· To ease the overcrowding and save California about $1.1 billion over two years, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed freeing about 22,000 prisoners convicted of nonviolent, nonsexual offenses 20 months earlier than their scheduled release dates. He also wants to place them on unsupervised parole, saving the state the cost of having all parolees assigned to an agent.

· Lawmakers in Providence, R.I., approved an expansion last week of the state's "good time" early-release rules to cover more inmates serving shorter sentences. The new rules, which will put more inmates under post-prison supervision, are expected to save Rhode Island an estimated $8 billion over five years.

· In Kentucky, where 22,000 state inmates are housed in county prisons and private facilities, lawmakers agreed to allow certain nonviolent, nonsexual offenders to serve up to 180 days of their sentences at home, and to make it easier for prisoners to earn credit for good behavior. The move could save the state, which is facing a $900 million deficit over the next two years, as much as $30 million.

· In Mississippi, where the prison population has doubled during the past dozen years to 22,600, Gov. Haley Barbour (R) has signed into law two measures that will reduce it: One to let certain nonviolent offenders go free after serving 25 percent of their sentences, and the other to release some terminally ill inmates.

· South Carolina, meanwhile, is looking to abolish parole, in part to slow the growth of its prison population since there would be fewer people returned to prison for parole violations.

Proposals to free prisoners are still met with opposition, particularly from law enforcement officials who fear that a flood of released felons could return to their communities, and from victims groups that worry that justice is being sacrificed for budgetary concerns.

The California plan has drawn criticism from the Legislative Analyst's Office, the state's nonpartisan fiscal adviser, which warned that 63,000 mid-level offenders would "effectively go unpunished, serving little or no prison time" and would not have active supervision.

The proposal also worries local governments and police in California, particularly in Los Angeles County -- home to the nation's largest prison system, which supplies about a third of the state's prison population. "It's kind of like the volcano has erupted," County Sheriff Lee Baca said. "To let out 63,000 prisoners on summary parole -- which means no parole -- is not good policy."

Bob Pack, 52, of Danville, Calif., is particularly disturbed by the prospect of softer punishment forthose convicted of drunken driving. In 2003, Pack's two children -- Troy, 10, and Alana, 7 -- were struck and killed when a drunk driver's car jumped a curb and ran onto a neighborhood sidewalk. The driver had three prior drunken-driving convictions.

Said Pack: "I guarantee you that if this program is fulfilled, somewhere down the road -- it could be three months or a year -- there's going to be a family in court over the death of a loved one, because of someone who got out early."

But for now, state officials are finding themselves under mounting pressure to cut costs and are looking at their rising prison population.

Between 1987 and last year, states increased their higher education spending by 21 percent, in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to the Pew Center on the States. During the same period, spending on corrections jumped by 127 percent.

In the Northeastern states, according to the Pew report, prison spending over the past 20 years has risen 61 percent, while higher education spending has declined by 5.5 percent.

California -- which has the country's worst fiscal crisis, with a potential shortfall of $20 billion -- has seen its prison-related spending swell to $10.4 billion for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. About 170,000 inmates are packed into California's 33 prisons, which were designed to hold 100,000. About 15,000 prisoners are being housed in emergency beds, in converted classrooms and gymnasiums.

Rhode Island's prison population peaked and its 4,000-inmate prison capacity was exceeded in recent years, prompting a lawsuit and a court settlement. "The soaring inmate census has created a crisis here," said Ashbel T. Wall, the state's corrections director. "We've been busting the budget continuously. . . . Our prisons have been packed."

New Jersey is one state making changes out of a desire for more efficiency. Gov. Jon S. Corzine (D) is proposing legislation to expand drug courts to channel more nonviolent, first-time drug offenders into treatment instead of prisons, and also to expand supervised parole. Another proposal would change the parole policy so parolees were not automatically returned to prison for minor drug offenses, said Lilo Stainton, the governor's spokeswoman.

She said that in New Jersey's case, the changes are not budget-driven. "We think this is a more humane and sensible way to treat people," she said.

Michigan is grappling with a massive prison population, mainly because "truth in sentencing" rules make the state less generous about granting paroles. Michigan's incarceration rate is 47 percent higher than that of the other Great Lakes states, according to experts.

Michigan has become one of the few states that actually spend more on prisons than on higher education -- about $2 billion for prisons, and $1.9 billion in state aid to its 15 public universities and 28 community colleges. "It's insane," said Barbara Levine of the Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending in Lansing. "The governor is always talking about how we need to be high tech. But these days, the best career opportunity is to get a job as a prison guard."

In fact, according to Thomas Clay, a prisons and budget expert with Michigan's nonprofit Citizens Research Council, the state government employed 70,000 people in 1980, including 5,000 working for the prisons system. Today, the number of state workers has dropped to 54,000, but 17,000 work for the prisons.

"You've got two decades of failed policies," said Laura Sager a consultant in Michigan for Families Against Mandatory Minimums. She said mandatory sentencing laws and tough penalties for drug offenses in the 1980s "bloated prisons and prison populations, and the taxpayer is paying a very high price."

Now with states struggling with budget deficits, she said, "you have pressures that make it palatable to take a second look."

Surdin reported from Los Angeles.

Why Prison Population Keeps Growing

2008-03-09T05:16:00.000+13:00

America Behind Bars: Why Attempts at Prison Reform Keep Failing

By Liliana Segura, AlterNet
Posted on March 5, 2008, Printed on March 8, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/78648/

When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared plans in January 2005 to reform California's prisons, starting with a rebranding campaign (it's the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation now), his announcement signaled much-needed relief for California taxpayers, whose overstretched, scandal-prone prison system was screaming for an overhaul.

But three years later, California maintains the second-highest prison population in the country (171,444 in January 2008) and the highest recidivism rate (a staggering 70 percent).

From the start, people familiar with the embattled prison system were skeptical. "Everybody's going to get new business cards and letterheads," said Lance Corcoran, vice president of the powerful California Correctional Peace Officers Association, "but we haven't changed with respect to providing inmates anything different."

Gov. Schwarzenegger's largely failed attempts at prison reform -- e.g. reducing the overall prison population and releasing low-risk, nonviolent offenders early -- is a reflection of a larger economic and political dynamic playing out across the country. On one hand, people are starting to realize that bloated prison systems are a resource suck on an already troubled economy. On the other hand, many people -- even in that liberal bastion, California -- cling to the misguided idea that locking up large numbers of lawbreakers will keep the public safer. That leaves politicians like Schwarzenegger trying to straddle a line between appearing "tough on crime" and pushing for meaningful reform. So far, the former has won out. In many ways, California is a microcosm of the American prison crisis -- one that has reached alarming proportions.

The most recent proof is summarized in the title of a report released last week by the Pew Center on the States: "One in 100: Americans Behind Bars 2008." The study examines the state of adult America (no juveniles were included) to deliver a sobering new measure of our incarceration nation. The title statistic alone is jaw-dropping, representing a historic high (or new low, depending on how you look at it) when it comes to American justice. With more than 2.3 million people behind bars, the United States leads the world in its prison population, well ahead of China (1.5 million) and leaving Russia in the dust (890,000). "Beyond the sheer number of inmates, America is also the global leader in the rate at which it incarcerates its citizenry," the study reports, "outpacing nations like South Africa and Iran."

As always, it turns out the "citizenry" disproportionately consists of black men over 18 (one in 15 are imprisoned) -- and particularly those between the age of 20 and 34 (1 in 9). Recidivism rates are also sky-high. According to the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, more than a third of the people admitted to prison in 2005 were arrested on parole violations. "Nationally, more than half of released offenders are back in prison within three years," the Pew study reports, "either for a new crime or for violating the terms of their release." In 1998, thanks in large part to the War on Drugs, the number of nonviolent prisoners hit 1 million -- and has risen since then. The number of women prisoners is also rising, and black women are a microcosm of the national prison epidemic: One in 100 black women in their mid- to late 30s is behind bars.

It's a clarion call for reform, no doubt, but beyond its record-breaking numbers, the Pew study breaks no news -- at least not in the larger scheme of the American criminal justice system. It's a crisis decades in the making, and a 50-state Pew analysis released at the same time last year provided similarly startling projections of where our prisons and jails are headed, to far less fanfare. But one in 100 is a stark figure (and, in fact, the exact number is worse: 1 in 99.1). Thus, both the New York Times and the Washington Post ran stories -- with the Post holding an online Q&A with one of the study's authors the day after it was released. The report even nudged its way into the presidential race: Hillary Clinton issued a press release on her campaign website that day bemoaning the "heartbreaking statistic" and invoking the need for "a president who will be tough on crime, but smart about it too." (As a senator representing a state whose rural regions are littered with the architecture of a prison explosion fanned during her husband's administration, it's an important statement -- if only a statement).

While public shock and dismay over the criminal justice system is a good thing, policy reform usually only comes once those in power recognize public support for measures otherwise considered too politically risky. (Iraq war notwithstanding.) Indeed, a significant part of the Pew study (which was written mainly with politicians in mind) is devoted to showing that policy makers are starting to come around on the prison issue, increasingly talking about being "smart" rather than "tough" on crime. The hope is that others will take their lead. "There's a shift away from the mindset of lock them up and throw away the key," one Ohio Republican legislator is quoted as saying. Alternatives include investing in drug treatment for prisoners -- as well as "drug courts" -- relaxing stringent parole rules and curbing mandatory minimums.

Ironically (if necessarily) the states that appear to be paving the way on prison reform are the ones who lock up the most people. Take Texas: Between 1985 and 2005, its prison population rose by 300 percent, a growth rate even the state's death row machinery couldn't offset. Now, with an estimated prison population of 171,790, according to the Pew study, the Lone Star State is forging "a new path," with a bipartisan decision last year to authorize a "virtual makeover" of the prison system. The overhaul will include more drug treatment for prisoners and "broad changes in parole practices" aimed to curb recidivism rates. If all goes according to plan, the state may be able to shelve emergency blueprints for three new prisons. "It's always been safer politically to build the next prison, rather than stop and see whether that's really the smartest thing to do," the Houston-based chair of the Texas senate's criminal justice committee said. "But we're at the point where I don't think we can afford to do that anymore."

Financially, this is certainly true. Politically, Texas lawmakers will likely face serious challenges when it comes to implementing these reforms. In California, months after tacking the word "rehabilitation" to its Department of Corrections, an organization called Crime Victims United of California created TV ads accusing the governor of abandoning crime victims and endangering Californians by easing up the punishments for people on parole. In concert with the CCPOA, the effort successfully derailed one of the central components of Schwarzenegger's plan. Rather than receive drug counseling or anything comparable, parole violators would be shuttled back to prison.

The move was a big step backward. "Eliminating alternative sanctions as an option for parole violators will undoubtedly drive up the inmate population and exacerbate overcrowding in the California prison system, already jam-packed to nearly twice its design capacity," reported the Los Angeles Times in April 2005. "Experts say such conditions -- with inmates stacked in triple-decker bunks and wedged into gyms, hallways and other spaces not intended as housing -- are a recipe for riots."

In fairness, regardless of what happens in Texas, it's hard to begrudge honest-sounding and measured rhetoric about an issue that historically has attracted so much belligerent posturing. But at the same time, for those who have watched the American criminal justice system consume not just state budgets but whole city blocks, it's also somewhat infuriating. Warehousing massive populations of men and women is, on its face, bad public policy. For politicians to be just waking up to this maddening reality seems dubious. What's more, the dollars and sense tone so many strike when espousing the benefits of prison reform leaves out a major factor -- a veritable elephant in the room when it comes to the prison boom: the powerful incentives that continue to keep the prison population high. From construction to prison security to healthcare, prisons are an industry -- and a highly lucrative one at that. "Profits oil the machinery, keep it humming and speed its growth," wrote criminal justice expert Judith Greene in an essay recently published in Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money From Mass Incarceration (New Press). With states spending $44 billion in tax dollars on corrections, prisons are an enormous cash cow for private companies.

In its 2005 annual report, the Corrections Corporation of America laid out what's at stake for a prison industry facing reform:

Our growth is generally dependent upon our ability to obtain new contracts to develop and manage new correctional and detention facilities ... The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws.

... Legislation has been proposed in numerous jurisdictions that could lower minimum sentences for some nonviolent crimes and make more inmates eligible for early release ... Also, sentencing alternatives under consideration could put some offenders on probation with electronic monitors who would otherwise be incarcerated. Similarly, reductions in crime rates could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities.

The reforms described by the rather alarmed-sounding CCA mirror those that Pew and other advocates herald as a way to curb the growing prison crisis -- and it appears that lawmakers are finally willing to hear them. "What we're seeing is state leaders around the country starting to call time out," said Pew researcher Susan K. Urahn during the Post's online chat. "We are seeing activity in several states where legislators from both parties are saying, 'We aren't getting our money's worth out of prisons.'" So, for example, "for the same amount of money, you could keep one inmate behind bars for an additional year, or you could provide treatment and intensive supervision for several others -- and cut the recidivism rate considerably." But who will provide treatment -- and how about those electric monitors? Like prison construction itself, prison "reform" will largely amount to trading in one set of services for another.

Reform as it stands mostly means managing a massive pre-existing population that is already mired in the prison-to-parole-to-prison pipeline. With the numbers so high, any small adjustments in the system will yield results. In Texas' case, "even a small tweak -- such as the 5 percent increase in grants by the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole between 2006 and 2007 -- can have an appreciable thinning affect on the prison population." It is too soon to tell how effective such reforms will be in the long term.

Going beyond managing the prison population from state to state to effectively reduce it nationwide will take much more than implementing piecemeal alternatives. The fact that we're no longer seeing an all-out race to the bottom in prison expansion is a good thing, but deeper change will require dismantling the pervasive attachment to conventional wisdom that, despite being erroneous and counterproductive, is still used to justify the record-breaking rise in the American prison population. "One out of every 100 adults is behind bars because one out of every 100 adults has committed a serious criminal offense," a Utah-based law professor and former federal judge told the New York Times last week, directly contradicting the conclusions of the Pew study, which focused much attention on the pitfalls of locking up nonviolent and drug offenders.

Others continue to defend the sweeping policies that got us here in the first place. "The fact that we have a large prison population by itself is not a central problem because it has contributed to the extraordinary increase in public safety we have had in this country," conservative sociologist James Q. Wilson told the Washington Post. Hardly unbiased criticism, given that Wilson was one of the intellectual engines behind the "broken windows" theory that helped get us into this mess. (And tell that to black or Latino families who experience the criminal justice system's harshest excesses -- from children growing up without their parents to parents paying crippling phone fees to reach their children. Or tell that to now-elderly prisoners living out their final days behind bars, whose threat to society is negligible and whose failing health makes them highly vulnerable -- and hugely expensive to care for.)

Besides, connecting the prison boom to an increase in public safety is a classic canard. Studies by organizations such as the Vera Institute of Justice have found only a small correlation between prisons and reduced crime. As Urahn puts it, "incarceration is not the dominant force in crime control that many people assume ... despite having quadrupled the prison population over the past 25 years, we have not quadrupled public safety."

What has soared is the cost for taxpayers -- $50 billion per year at the state level and an additional $5 billion at the federal level, according to the Pew study. Perhaps more than even the stunning one in 100 figure, these are the numbers that should shake people awake. But regardless of all proof to the contrary, many Americans remain attached to the idea that prisons keep them safe. "We are jammed up in this situation right now because we have fallen in love with one of the most undocumented beliefs," California Sen. Don Perata said in 2007. "That somehow you get safer if you put more people in jail."

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/78648/

TWO NATIONAL GROUPS WORKING FOR PRISON REFORM

2007-11-22T03:54:00.000+13:00

Here are releases from FAMM and the Sentenching Project

FAMM urges Sentencing Commission to make crack cocaine guideline
amendment retroactive

Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), the nation's leading
sentencing reform organization with 13,000 members, today calls on the
U.S. Sentencing Commission to make retroactive the crack cocaine
guideline amendment that went into effect on November 1. FAMM has
spearheaded the effort to make the crack cocaine guideline change apply
to people already in prison, helping generate over 30,000 letters to
the Sentencing Commission in support of retroactivity.

Nearly 20,000 prisoners could see their sentences reduced by an average
of more than two years, if the so-called "crack minus two"
guideline amendment that went into effect on November 1 is made
retroactive.

On November 13, FAMM members from across the country will attend the
Commission's public hearing on retroactivity in Washington, D.C.,
bearing photographs of their incarcerated loved ones. FAMM president
Julie Stewart will also testify at the hearing at 3:30 p.m.
"Retroactivity of the crack guideline will not only affect the
lives of nearly 20,000 individuals in prison but that of thousands more
- mothers, fathers, daughters and sons - who anxiously wait for them to
return home." said Stewart. Visit www.famm.org to read Stewart's
testimony to the Commission.

Since 1995, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has repeatedly advised
Congress that there is no rational, scientific basis for the 100-to-1
ratio between crack and powder cocaine sentences. The Commission has
also identified the disparity as the "single most important"
factor in longer sentences for African Americans compared to other
racial groups. The criminal law committee of the Judicial Conference of
the United States, which represents the federal judges who would
administer the application of the amendment to people in prison, has
written the Commission in favor of retroactivity.

"Nearly 80 percent of defendants convicted of federal crack
cocaine offenses after Nov. 1 now face sentences 16 months shorter on
average, thanks to sentencing guideline reforms approved by the U.S.
Sentencing Commission," said Julie Stewart, president and founder
of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM). "The Sentencing
Commission must now make the change retroactive. If a sentence is
sufficient to serve the purposes of punishment for defendants in the
future, it is sufficient for those who were sentenced under unjust
rules in the past. Clearly, justice should not turn on the date an
individual is sentenced."

Many FAMM members, including Lamont and Lawrence Garrison, would
benefit if the changes are made retroactive. Arrested just months after
graduating from Howard University, Lamont received 19 years and
Lawrence received 15 years, respectively, after being accused of
conspiring to distribute crack and powder cocaine. Both brothers would
receive sentence reductions between three and four years.

However, neither the new guideline nor making it retroactive will
impact the statutory 100-to-1 quantity disparity between crack and
powder cocaine. "Congress must act to address the mandatory
minimums that created the cocaine sentencing disparity in 1986 in order
to ensure equal justice for all defendants," said Stewart.

Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) is the national voice for
fair and proportionate sentencing laws. FAMM shines a light on the
human face of sentencing, advocate for state and federal sentencing
reform, and mobilize thousands of individuals and families whose lives
are adversely affected by unjust sentences.

To speak to Julie Stewart about these changes, or to arrange an
interview with people affected by mandatory sentencing laws, including
Lawrence and Lamont Garrison's mother, Karen Garrison, please email
media@famm.org.

_______________________________________________
Dear Friends,

Tomorrow I will be testifying before the U.S. Sentencing Commission to urge the
Commission to make retroactive its recent guideline amendment [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001EGi_ygjACRO6SJElZr4q1rp2hICqWV0O_Y6Smr4VJwF9cZjABZo_w3LbTa9AzEBfW-sGMDZXCOn9FN1pGQ9NpLSvydRawzxF8yYPOMrwUnoS0MFZCYxvqvP-JkUaie0RKPN7Dns81UgUP_BnZsfUx6finsoLu0A4]
on crack cocaine offenses. If the Commission does so, an estimated 19,500 persons
in prison will be eligible for a sentence reduction averaging more than two years.

My testimony [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001EGi_ygjACRMnfCRAz_id8LwiGMSs0GYLlJ7h0FOMgXUNyje4ca3WCzzqDicYHdNSLKfHq3_lQUqusuCYHvStzyD68M1paxrHITtjYbIMMeAu0zXYqQywzKzhNQToBvd9L86IDUIcVRcuK-9LmFw6mPMaoUuM2ttEX1z1yqCKBE2RcmaL0--IuB9lWsjbi-y8]
addresses several issues that the Commission is likely to consider, including:

* Public Safety - Many of the persons who will benefit from retroactivity will have
served many years in prison, far longer on average than persons convicted of powder
cocaine offenses. They are thus likely to be "aging out" of crime and can benefit
from reentry programming in the federal prison system.
* Consistency in Sentencing - The Commission has called for crack cocaine sentencing
reform since 1995, and therefore it is only proper to apply the amendment to persons
in prison, the vast majority of whom have been sentenced since that time.
* Racial Disparity - Since previous drug amendments which were more likely to benefit
whites and Hispanics were made retroactive, there would be serious concerns about
bias in the system if the crack amendment is not made retroactive. An estimated
85% of the persons who would benefit from such a policy are African American.
* Cost Issues - While there would be some additional court and corrections costs
associated with applying the amendment retroactively, these would be more than
offset by the long-term reduction in incarceration that would occur.

My testimony builds on a previous letter [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001EGi_ygjACROYCfLQMkX-Exe93poOnOgiheobVydk_W5Le78XMkFDJ1OrNn-VgkMzHShKPsv8OGg1ulKylW0sr0yM1dDUsYUCJMEfbZw1o96vFUm1yUh38UTeECXCJ4sjNABqL3CsLi6k3jrpnZvXLok2Vflzu1ouWjeKlaE7vINi5V-FddLP99R6V5hmgo5WzKjXqSCYEKQIwa1GbGh0G5e2oXfDJNCh]
we have sent to the Commission describing the rationale and feasibility for retroactivity.
And for more information on the issue, please see our web resources on crack cocaine
at www.sentencingproject.org/crackreform [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001EGi_ygjACRP4EjJyLn9JwNKUpnSUNqxIqSNifumkabDEqB0-c7OJkmSTEiUkDUz9roPSkN3owTrqDBiWdpsa0c3riibY7BEjzfPo-ZSs5Xhx5BHTqILQ6C_guQtbKbV23bwFkCsg0ZM=].

The hearing will take place from 9:30 - 4:30 on Tuesday, November 13th at Georgetown
University Law Center, 120 F St., NW, in the 12th Floor Conference Room of the Gewirz
Student Center.

I hope you find this information useful, and I will keep you posted on progress
in this area.

Regards,

Marc Mauer

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forward email
http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1011339988101&ea=pbbaute@paschalbaute.com&a=1101873668018

U. S. Prison system a costly failure

2007-11-20T08:21:00.000+13:00

Prison System a Costly and Harmful Failure: Report

by Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON - The number of Americans in prison has risen eight-fold since 1970, with little impact on crime but at great cost to taxpayers and society, researchers said in a report calling for a major justice-system overhaul.

The report released on Monday cites statistics and examples ranging from former vice-presidential aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby to a Florida woman’s two-year sentence for throwing a cup of coffee to make its case for reducing the U.S. prison population.

It recommends shorter sentences and parole terms, alternative punishments, more help for released inmates and decriminalizing recreational drugs as steps that would cut the prison population in half, save $20 billion a year and ease social inequality without endangering the public.

“President (George W.) Bush was right,” in commuting Libby’s perjury sentence this year, the report says. “But while he was at it, President Bush should have commuted the sentences of hundreds of thousands of Americans who each year have also received prison sentences for crimes that pose little if any danger or harm to our society.”

The report was produced by the JFA Institute, a Washington criminal-justice research group, and its authors included eight criminologists from major U.S. public universities. It was funded by the Rosenbaum Foundation and financier George Soros’s Open Society Institute.

Its recommendations run counter to broad U.S. public support for getting tough on criminals through longer, harsher sentences and to the Bush administration’s anti-drug stance.

SHIFTING ATTITUDES

But the report cites state and local trends such as medical-marijuana laws as signs attitudes toward punishment may be shifting.

More than 1.5 million people are now in U.S. state and federal prisons, and the number has risen each year from 196,429 in 1970, the report said. Another 750,000 people are in U.S. jails.

Although the U.S. crime rate declined in the 1990s and much of this decade, it is still about the same as in 1973, it said. But the prison population has soared because sentences have gotten longer and people who violate parole or probation are more likely to be imprisoned.

“There is no evidence that keeping people in prison longer makes us any safer,” JFA President James Austin, a co-author of the report, said in a release.

The report said the prison population is projected to grow by another 192,000 in five years, at a cost of $27.5 billion to build and operate additional prisons.

At current rates, one-third of all black males, one-sixth of Latino males, and one in 17 white males will go to prison during their lives.

Women represent the fastest-growing segment of the prison population, the report said. The result is increased social and racial inequality.

“The massive incarceration of young males from mostly poor- and working-class neighborhoods, and the taking of women from their families and jobs, has crippled their potential for forming healthy families and achieving economic gains,” it said.

Drug Policy Changes

2007-11-13T23:38:00.000+13:00

Sentences for crack offenses studied

Thousands of federal prisoners could be released soon

By Darryl Fears

The Washington Post

updated 12:20 a.m. ET, Tues., Nov. 13, 2007

An independent panel is considering reducing the sentences of inmates incarcerated in federal prisons for crack cocaine offenses, which would make thousands of people immediately eligible to be freed.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets guidelines for federal prison sentences, established more lenient guidelines this spring for future crack cocaine offenders. The panel is scheduled to consider today a proposal to make the new guidelines retroactive.

Should the panel adopt the new policy, the sentences of 19,500 inmates would be reduced by an average of 27 months. About 3,800 inmates now imprisoned for possession and distribution of crack cocaine could be freed within the next year, according to the commission's analysis. The proposal would cover only inmates in federal prisons and not those in state correctional facilities, where the vast majority of people convicted of drug offenses are held.

By far the largest number -- more than 1,400 -- of those who would be eligible for sentence reductions were convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which has jurisdiction over Northern Virginia and the Richmond area, according to an analysis done by the commission. Nearly 280 inmates convicted in federal courts in Maryland would be eligible, as well as almost 270 prisoners found guilty in the District of Columbia.

The commission is taking up one of the most racially sensitive issues of the two-decades-old war on drugs. Jurists and civil rights organizations have long complained that the commission's guidelines mandate more stringent federal penalties for crack cocaine offenses, which usually involve African Americans, than for crimes involving powder cocaine, which generally involve white people. The chemical properties of the drugs are the same, though crack is potentially more addictive.

Nearly 86 percent of inmates who would be affected by the change are black; slightly fewer than 6 percent are white. Ninety-four percent are men.

The commission's proposal does not change sentencing recommendations for powder cocaine.

Created in 1984 to bring more consistency to sentencing in federal courts, the commission has reduced sentences and made such decisions retroactive for offenses involving LSD, marijuana cultivation and the painkiller OxyContin. But none involved such a large number of inmates or so controversial a drug, or have had such racial implications.

‘Jeopardize community safety’
The Bush administration opposes the new plan, arguing that it would overburden federal courts and release potentially dangerous drug offenders. In a letter to the commission, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher wrote that the release of a large number of drug offenders "would jeopardize community safety and threatens to unravel the success we have achieved in removing violent crack offenders from high-crime neighborhoods."

But many federal judges, public defenders, parole officers and civil rights advocates favor the move, asserting that the penalties for crack cocaine charges have fallen disproportionately onto black people.

"Making the amendment retroactive will . . . help repair the image of the sentencing guidelines in communities of color," NAACP Chairman Julian Bond wrote to the commission. "It is cruel and arbitrary to fix this injustice for some, but not for others, solely because of the date they were sentenced."

Congress has the power to overturn the proposal, but it is unclear whether it will do so. Lawmakers had 180 days to reverse the commission's May 1 decision to effect more lenient sentences for individuals convicted in some crack-related offenses, and they took no action. Those changes in the guidelines took effect Nov. 1.

The commission, an agency in the judicial branch, consists of seven voting members, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. (The attorney general and the chairman of the U.S. Parole Commission are nonvoting members.) Three commissioners must be federal judges. Four current members were named by President Bush; the rest were tapped by President Bill Clinton in 1999.

Judicial disparity
In part, because of crack's relatively cheap price, most offenders are poor black people. As a result, some civil libertarians cite sentencing discrepancies as one reason for the explosion in the number of African Americans -- especially men -- behind bars.

Testifying before Congress earlier this year, the chairman of the sentencing commission, Ricardo H. Hinojosa, implored lawmakers to ease the crack guidelines. He said the racial differences between users of crack and powder cocaine created an unwarranted judicial disparity.

If the plan for retroactive reductions is adopted, inmates serving time for certain crack offenses can petition a judge for a hearing on whether they can be freed as a result of having their sentences reduced. A judge's decision can be appealed.

Richard L. Delonis, national president of the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, warned that retroaction would burden prosecutors and overwhelm U.S. marshals, who would have to resettle prisoners into halfway houses.

Among those challenging that argument are the committee on criminal law for the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Robert W. Pratt, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, said assertions that retroaction will result in "an avalanche of motions . . . are exaggerated." He added: "The courts' workloads should not stand in the way of achieving sentences in 'crack' cocaine cases that are proportionate, fair and serve the interests of justice."

Inmates who might benefit from the reductions include Lamont and Lawrence Garrison, African American twins and graduates of Howard University who were sent to prison for 19 years and 15 years, respectively, for distributing crack cocaine.

Lamont Garrison's sentence could be reduced by four years and his brother's by three years if the guidelines become retroactive, said Monica Pratt Raffanel, a spokeswoman for Families Against Mandatory Minimums, an advocacy group that has lobbied for changes to the sentencing guidelines.

"They've been gone for almost 10 years, and the crack in the door with this little change is good," said Karen Garrison, the twins' mother. "As far as the retroactivity, part of it is not to think nothing until I see it. They still have to go back to court. It's not as easy as it seems if it does become retroactive. You just have to do the right thing and hope you get something back."

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21763002/

MSN Privacy . Legal

Sentences reduced for Crack Cocaine

2007-11-08T14:01:00.000+13:00

Friends,

At a time of growing national concern about unequal treatment within the justice
system, the United States Sentencing Commission today lowered the Guideline sentences
for offenses involving crack cocaine, likely impacting 3,500 federally sentenced
defendants each year. Commission concerns about the excessive penalty structure
for crack cocaine offenses prompted the change that on average will reduce defendants'
sentences by 15 months.

The Commission sets an advisory guideline range that federal judges use when sentencing
defendants. Under the old range, average sentences for crack cocaine offenses were
121 months. Now the estimated average sentence will be 106 months. In May the Commission
recommended statutory reforms and proposed to Congress the amendment to decrease
the guideline offense level for crack cocaine offenses. The amendment went unchallenged
by Congress and therefore takes effect today. According to Commission analysis,
the modification would reduce the size of the federal prison population by 3,800
in 15 years. Such a reduction would result in savings of over $87 million, according
to The Sentencing Project.

This change, however, only addresses one aspect of the controversy surrounding crack
cocaine sentencing. The Commission is currently considering whether to apply the
amendment retroactively - a move that would make approximately 19,500 persons in
prison eligible for a reduced sentence. The Commission will hear testimony on this
issue at a Nov. 13 public hearing at which I will testify in favor of retroactivity.

In a submission to the Commission, The Sentencing Project argues that "the Commission,
courts, and commentators all have recognized the undue disparity caused by the Guidelines
since their inception. Thus, defendants who were incarcerated when the problems
with the crack Guidelines first became evident should also be granted an opportunity
to pursue the benefit of this long overdue remedy."

The new policy comes on the heels of oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court
in Kimbrough v. the United States. The high court is being asked to uphold the authority
of federal judges to depart from the sentencing guidelines in crack cocaine cases
when they disagree with sentencing policy.Furthermore, bipartisan reform legislation
is pending in Congress and hearings addressing the statutory mandatory minimum sentences
are expected this fall.

Use the following links to read The Sentencing Project's letter [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001eddgdBR1oT5iy7kgK6Z6fx9E6SBFsj9h2ziySaDYXMBmi7RugK_HbJ0-yTW3U5tKr0aUdRWBJD_a5JsT7bBtuQ9w3Mgxk8wL79JImyvEWB4SQgktKvlgQwlVi0av6Gt3Udg9Z022mDurYvQiQ0Woboa5o71jOMTDdsq_xxSPA8Op5rrwxZfXMgZrtdvGBaL3RAJjXo6bMmIUkCvsdcLyGg==]
to the Commission urging retroactivity, and learn more about the momentum to end
the sentencing disparity at: www.sentencingproject.org/crackreform [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001eddgdBR1oT5iy7kgK6Z6fx9E6SBFsj9h2ziySaDYXMBmi7RugK_HbJtwuTSzseRyNWmh38eybHDk1R5uY002dYOk9yNH1Y3FcmlypqkvBjKMfWalnfbdNcsER_K9Aie_].

Regards,

Marc Mauer

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forward email
http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1011339988101&ea=pbbaute@paschalbaute.com&a=1101862747810

This email was sent to pbbaute@paschalbaute.com,
by zjennings@sentencingproject.org

Update Profile/Email Address
http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=oo&m=1011339988101&ea=pbbaute%40paschalbaute.com&t=1101862747810&lang=en&reason=F

Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM)
http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=un&m=1011339988101&ea=pbbaute%40paschalbaute.com&t=1101862747810&lang=en&reason=F

Privacy Policy:
http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp

Email Marketing by
Constant Contact(R)
www.constantcontact.com

The Sentencing Project | 514 10th St, NW | Suite 1000 | Washington | DC | 20004

Pre-Trial Drug Diversion Centers? We need legislative support.

2007-07-06T08:27:00.000+13:00

KEEJ supporters, please read the following message and
consider calling your state senator to ask for support
for this initiative of Governor Fletcher in the upcoming assembly.
It was attempted and failed last time. Our Support is
necessary. Thank you for this consideration.
Rev. Dr. Paschal Baute.
__________

Pre-trial drug diversion (Regular Session 2007 SB 34)

Dear Dr. Baute

While Governor Fletcher's administration has worked hard to improve
enforcement on drug possession and use in Kentucky, he knows that is not
the full solution to the drug problem. Without treatment for
individuals, there will still be the demand that brings drugs into
Kentucky.

Through a collaborative effort, Governor Fletcher initiated the
"Recovery Kentucky" program, establishing 10 recovery centers across
Kentucky that will help people beat their drug and alcohol addictions in
a supportive environment. The administration also implemented the first
comprehensive statewide substance abuse treatment program in Juvenile
Justice because 57% of DJJ youth in facilities are at moderate to high
risk for substance abuse.

Earlier this year, the Governor supported Senator Kelly's SB 34 in the
2007 regular session of the general assembly. That bill would establish
a pre-trial option for accused non-violent drug users to enter secure
rehabilitation rather than waiting in jail for a trial.

Treating these individuals is not only the right thing to do, but has
the double benefit of saving the state the costs of their incarceration
as well as allowing them the opportunity to be productive citizens.

SB 34 was one of many bills that were lost in the politics of general
session, but Governor Fletcher has added it to the call for the special
session today, July 5th, so that the General Assembly will have another
opportunity to get this worthy program started.

Some members of the legislature have suggested that they do not wish to
address this issue now, but it should be something that we can all
easily agree on.

In our phone conversation you asked about the phone number to contact
your legislator. It is 1-800-372-7181.

Thank you,

Andy Hightower

Testimony on Mandatory Minimums

2007-06-27T02:17:00.000+13:00

Friends:

Marc Mauer, Executive Director of The Sentencing Project, testifies Tuesday, June
26, 2007 on the issue of Mandatory Minumum Sentencing before the House Judiciary
Subcommitee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

Mauer's testimony [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=lxvqqbcab.0.yarwqbcab.fed4i7n6.8338&ts=S0257&p=http%3A%2F%2Fsentencingproject.org%2FAdmin%2FDocuments%2Fpublications%2Fsl_testimony_summer07.pdf]
focuses on the experience with the current generation of mandatory sentencing policies
in the federal system, the vast majority of which have been applied to drug offenses,
and the lessons we should learn from that in order to develop more effective public
policy. The main themes he will address include:

* Mandatory sentencing policies have been largely based on false premises, and are
particularly unwise in the federal system;
* Mandatory penalties in the federal system have not proven to achieve their objectives;
and
* A variety of policy initiatives could be enacted that would result in more fair
and effective sentencing, and would produce better public safety results.

Click here [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=lxvqqbcab.0.cbrwqbcab.fed4i7n6.8338&ts=S0257&p=http%3A%2F%2Fsentencingproject.org%2FPublicationDetails.aspx%3FPublicationID%3D592]
to view his testimony.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Sentencing Project [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=lxvqqbcab.0.geraavbab.fed4i7n6.8338&ts=S0257&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sentencingproject.org%2F]
514 10th St, NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forward email
http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1011339988101&ea=pbbaute@paschalbaute.com&a=1101709989611

This email was sent to pbbaute@paschalbaute.com,
by zjennings@sentencingproject.org

Update Profile/Email Address
http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=oo&m=1011339988101&ea=pbbaute%40paschalbaute.com&se=8338&t=1101709989611&lang=en&reason=F

Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM)
http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=un&m=1011339988101&ea=pbbaute%40paschalbaute.com&se=8338&t=1101709989611&lang=en&reason=F

Privacy Policy:
http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp

Email Marketing by
Constant Contact(R)
www.constantcontact.com

The Sentencing Project | 514 10th St, NW | Suite 1000 | Washington | DC | 20004

Tennessee Execution: American Bar Assn objects. see release

2007-05-12T09:10:00.000+13:00

Doubts About the Guilt of the Convict - a Dubious Execution in Tennessee
By AFP
Le Devoir

Thursday 10 May 2007

Washington - A 53-year-old man, condemned to death for the murder of a police officer during a holdup in 1981, was executed in Tennessee despite doubts about his guilt, several organizations which favor or oppose the death penalty report.

Philip Workman was declared dead Wednesday at 1:38 a.m. after having received a deadly triple injection in the Nashville prison.

The night of August 5, 1981 Philip Workman held up a restaurant in Frayser, close to Memphis. Arriving on the scene with two colleagues just as the robber was leaving, 43-year-old Lieutenant Ronald Oliver was killed by a bullet to the head.

The following year, Workman was found guilty of murder and condemned to death. Since then, the defense has demanded a new trial, deeming that the policeman was probably killed by a colleague's accidental shot: no ballistic analysis was conducted; no policeman saw the robber shoot; and the only witness against him at the trial subsequently retracted his testimony.

Philip Workman was never allowed a second trial, but after numerous last-minute reprieves, he had recently declared to a local television station: "On the one hand, all that is really sad. On the other hand, I'm tired. It's time to get it all over with."

Mr. Workman is the eighteenth condemned person executed this year in the United States and the third in Tennessee since the death penalty was reestablished in the country in 1976.

In a recent report, the American Bar Association denounced the application of the death penalty in Tennessee, described as failing by virtue of the absence of procedures to assert potential judicial mistakes and of the lack of training given public defenders.

Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher.

"Tough on Crime" Policies Produce Schools for Crime. Op Ed submission to Herald Leader, May 7

2007-05-10T03:01:00.000+13:00

OP ED submission to Herald Leader editorial page. 3 pp. FX 231-3332
"TOUGH ON CRIME" POLICIES PRODUCE SCHOOLS FOR CRIME.

Key concepts: "Serving time" for non-violent addictive offenders and non-support of children is in no way remedial. Jails and prisons are over-crowded with few programs available. There exists no process for following the recommendations made from tax supported studies. Changes are necessary to save tax dollars and reduce jail and prison costs. An independent commission is recommended.

Serious crises exist in Kentucky which are not being addressed in this political season. The first has to do with use of our tax money and the second, making criminals out of several ever-growing groups of people among us.

America incarcerates more citizens per capita than another other country in the world, including Russia. Kentucky with its harsh sentencing code puts in jail and prison more than three times the average of the seven surrounding states. Since 1975, incarcerations and imprisonments have increased by 6 ½ times while our state population increased by a mere 25%.

Governor Fletcher has been quoted as saying our county budgets are “hemorrhaging” due to the overwhelming burden of supporting an increasing jail population. State expenditures for prisons exploded from $7 million thirty years ago to over $300 million today, an increase of more than 4000 percent.

According to the report of the State Auditor on the county jails, 72% of our full service county jails are overcrowded. Those jails are also warehousing additional state and federal prisons because the added revenue helps support the county budget. Some counties are eager to build bigger jails to keep more inmates so they can raise more money..

This escalation of tax expense and of jail and prison space does not reduce crime. It is not designed to reduce crime. In fact. this growth is out of control. Eighty percent of all offenders are drug and alcohol related but practically no programs are available.

Basically we are now making criminals out of social problems: the prevalence of addiction, child non-support and the release of the mentally ill from asylums. Arrested persons in these categories are worse off after months or years in jail with no remedial programs. Therefore, we as a society are not any better or safer but rather blind to what is happening.

Even though the huge percentage of inmates have committed drug and alcohol related offenses, rehabilitation and transition programs are minimal. Whatever exist are mostly by volunteers. No state agency takes responsibility to ensure that programs can meet actual needs. Consequently, a “Revolving Door” is what happens, with two persons out of three returning within three years. Returning once more to mere warehousing.

Many judges are opposed to the mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent addictive behaviors. Mandatory minimums cuts out judicial consideration of extenuating circumstances options, and instead puts control into hands of "Tough on Crime" prosecutors. (For example, as Dr. Robert Lawson, UK Law Faculty, in his report, points out, driving with a suspended license or shop lifting can require ten years in prison for a third offense, regardless...)

The trickle-down effect of mandatory minimums and automatic increase of seriousness of previous offenses upon another offense, with rampant drug and alcohol abuse, means that we are forcing a large group of class D felony prisoners onto an already over-crowded jail population. So large an expenditure for warehousing these groups means that there is nothing left for programs of rehabilitation or transition.

So what has "Tough on Crime" legislation accomplished? What we are accomplishing is growing tax supported Stealth Schools for Crime, where with room, board and plenty of time, "serving time" means an education in drug connections, drug dealing and learning new ways to be more shrewd. In the meantime, families are more broken, addictions are deeper, and job skills shot, lost or obsolete. "Serving Time" is in no way remedial for the addictive offender.

Without programs, inmates with already impaired opportunities cannot exit detention better prepared to fit normally into society with regular jobs and supportive families.
Actually they are worse off each time they come out, having dug deeper holes for themselves in addiction, justified negative attitudes and betrayed family trust. The quickest way to survive on the streets is to deal with drugs. All their connections and addictive associates are waiting.

In 2005, the Chief Justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court appointed a Blue Ribbon Sentencing Commission, which with initial sincere enthusiasm, made several recommendations to the General Assembly. Unfortunately no such new legislation was addressed and the Commission has been abandoned. Apparently too many politicians are afraid of being accused of being “soft on crime.” Prosecutors get faster guilty pleas since they hold the cards with mandatory minimum sentencing policies.

But our Justice system, judges and prosecutors, are pledged to administer the law “fairly.” Judges, prosecutors, legislators and citizens –all of us– have a duty to face this crisis. Yet our criminal justice system, let it be said, is not an equal opportunity employer.

African Americans make up 15 percent of drug users, but account for 37 percent of those arrested on drug charges, 59 percent of those convicted, and 74 percent of all drug offenders sentenced to prison. Or consider this: America has 260,000 people in state prisons on nonviolent drug charges; 183,200 (more than 70 percent) are black or Latino. (2006 ACLU report)

Black men are seven times more likely to be incarcerated, with average jail sentences about 10 months longer than those of white men. A total of 12% of Black men in their 20s are in our correctional system, that is about 1/8 of this age group. (National Urban League figures, released April 17)

Since mandatory minimum sentencing first began for drug offenders, the Federal Bureau of Prisons' budget has increased by more than 2,100%, namely, from $220 million in 1986 to about $4.4 billion in 2004. Because of mandatory minimum sentences, the number of drug offenders in federal prison grew from 25% of the total inmate population in 1981 to 60% in 2001. It is larger still now.

What is a remedy? First of all, wake up to what we are getting from our taxes. We are not getting more safety and security that Tough on Crime advocates highly tout. We have created Stealth Schools for Crime by the revolving door. We have issues to address. We have reports, tax paid and supported, such as the State Auditor’s report on county jails with 14 recommendations that are already lost in the winds of political change.

We propose creating a permanent independent oversight commission on Sentencing, Corrections and Rehabilitation. Key players, such as Supreme Court judges, Attorney General, Corrections director or their reps would be included. A non-partisan citizens review panel for sustaining public advocacy and interest needs to be part of that Commission.

We ask the commission be chaired by distinguished legal scholars, perhaps rotating among our three law schools. Beginning chair could be someone with the qualifications of Dr. Robert Lawson, of the UK Law Faculty who has already written extensively on these matters and visited a number of county jails. (This legal scholar describes this situation with the term “criminalizing addictive behavior” repeatedly.)

Initially we see the urgent immediate mission is to vet the recommendations already made by State Auditor and the now dead Blue Ribbon Commission on Sentencing, for changes in legislation and sentencing policy. Then examine and support work release and effective treatment programs in order to reduce the revolving door.

An estimated $50-100 million per year could be saved in Kentucky (estimated figure from an attorney who is in court or jail or both everyday) Not to speak of lives and parents given back to many families.

We challenge each candidate for governor and for attorney general to announce their own proposals to address these issues. Many other changes are possible.

Rev. Paschal Baute, Ed. D.
Pastoral Psychologist
May 7, 2007
4080 Lofgren Court
Lexington, Ky
tel 859-293-5302

(Editor: we do not expect you to list these, but recognize that these issues are of concern to a number of citizens groups in Central Kentucky

Chair, Kentuckians Expecting Effective Justice
Facilitator of the Spiritual Growth Network of Kentucky
Coordinator of interfaith Fierce Landscape program at the Fayette Detention Cnnter now in its 5th year with ten volunteers. (Note: This program was featured in your Community section last August by Robin Roenker.)
This letter is signed by other indivdiuals whose names can be provided and these groups;
Central Kentucky Council of Peace and Justice.
Lexington Society of Friends.
Kingdom Purpose Ministries
Bluegrass Christian Community
Note to editor: Fact sheets on all factual matters listed can be found on my web blog at “Kentuckians Expecting...” Via my web site: www.paschalbaute.com, and scan to bottom blog.

Also The Interfaith Alliance (TIA) of the Bluegrass, president Mike Ward, has addressed this issue in a letter to the now abandoned Blue Ribbon Commission on Sentencing and are ready to follow it up. This is a group of progressive clergy and laity in Central Kentucky.
The Clergy and Laity Network of Kentucky have also addressed the issue and support this initiative.

These issues are also being addressed by the National Drug Policy Alliance,
and
The Sentencing Project,
both of which recognize the issues above are national, not merely local problems.

National Drug Policy Alliance Newsletter ALERT: Action Now.

2007-05-09T09:54:00.000+13:00

NEW ANTI-WAR VIDEO BY HIP-HOP MEGASTAR

Dear Fellow Reformer,

Harsh mandatory minimum sentences. Extreme racial disparities. Mass incarceration. Lack of affordable drug treatment. Loss of civil liberties. Destruction of families. Waste of billions of taxpayer dollars.

Watch the new video by Jim Jones: http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/ctt.asp?u=4180489&l=140381

Today marks the 34th anniversary of New York's draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws, which provided the model for America's longest running war: the war on drugs. Under the Rockefeller Drug Laws and the failed drug war, our country addresses drug use and abuse as a criminal issue, not a public health issue.

But the call for reform is getting louder every day. In observance of the anniversary of the failed Rockefeller Drug Laws, hip-hop megastar Jim Jones just released his new rap single, "Lockdown, USA," which calls for real reform of the RDLs and an end to the war on drugs. The song is a single from the forthcoming documentary, Lockdown, USA ( http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/ctt.asp?u=4180489&l=140411 ).

This single by Jim Jones is not available in stores yet--but you can listen to the song, and watch the video, on our website: http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/ctt.asp?u=4180489&l=140381

Afterwards, please urge New York Governor Elliot Spitzer and President George W. Bush to end the Rockefeller Drug Laws in New York, and stop the failed war on drugs in America.

Take action now: http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/ctt.asp?u=4180489&l=140382

We need to let them know the whole country is watching!

Then send this message to five of your friends--give them an opportunity to see the new video by Jim Jones! Please also consider becoming a member of the Drug Policy Alliance and joining the movement to end the war on drugs: http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/ctt.asp?u=4180489&l=140383 .

Let's make sure the Rockefeller Drug Laws don't have a 35th anniversary. Together, we can end America's longest war and restore justice in our communities.

Sincerely,

Gabriel Sayegh
Director, State Organizing and Policy Project
Drug Policy Alliance

Lockdown, USA:

Jim Jones, a member of the popular hip-hop crew The Diplomats, rocketed to stardom on the success of his smash hit, "We Fly High," the number one rap single on the Billboard Monitor Rap Chart, from the number one album on the Billboard Independent Chart, Hustler's P.O.M.E. (Product of My Environment). Raised in Harlem--a community that has been hard-hit by the failed Rockefeller Drug Laws--Jones has seen first-hand the racially discriminatory impact of the war on drugs, making his call for reform on "Lockdown, USA" that much more meaningful.

The new song and video are being released as part of the Drug Policy Alliance-led effort to win real reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. DPA chairs Real Reform New York, a coalition made up of dozens of organizations representing thousands of community members, activists, advocates, policy and treatment experts, survivors, their friends and families. The coalition seeks to replace the ineffective Rockefeller Drug Laws with cost effective, community-based alternatives that promote real justice and public safety.

Rockefeller Drug Laws:

In New York, over 14,000 people are incarcerated under the failed Rockefeller Drug Laws. And despite the fact that research shows that drug use is equal across racial categories, a staggering 91% of those incarcerated under the Rockefeller Drug Laws are Black and Latino. Nationally, there are over 2.3 million people in U.S. prisons and jails-almost 500,000 of whom are incarcerated for drug charges.

This year, the New York State Assembly passed a bill ( http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/ctt.asp?u=4180489&l=140384 ) that would enact real reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Now we need to make sure the Senate and the Governor approve this bill as well.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You received this message because pbbaute@qx.net is a member of the mailing list originating from alerts@actioncenter.drugpolicy.org.

Please visit http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/profileeditor/ to manage your subscriptions, including removing yourself from one or all lists, changing your email preference to HTML only, and giving us more information about yourself so we can better provide you content. You can also visit: http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/unsubscribe .

For problems, please contact Jeanette Irwin at jirwin@drugpolicy.org. If you are accessing the internet from a public library and are unable to open the links provided in this newsletter please e-mail webmaster@drugpolicy.org with the library name and location, as well as the url(s).

Please consider joining the Drug Policy Alliance: https://secure3.ctsg.com/dpa/donation/index.asp?Item=18&MS=https://secure3.ctsg.com/dpa/donation/index.asp?Item=18&MS=RockyJimJones-050807-aa

Sentencing changes for crack cocaine

2007-04-28T14:43:00.000+13:00

U.S. Sentencing Commission votes for changes to crack cocaine
sentencing guidelines!

WASHINGTON, D.C.: For the first time in 12 years, the U.S. Sentencing
Commission has approved guideline changes to federal crack cocaine
penalties tonight, by a 6-1 vote. The amendment affects approximately
78 percent of defendants convicted of crack cocaine offenses, reducing
their sentences by an average of 16 months. It will now be sent to
Congress on May 1, 2007, along with other proposed sentencing
amendments.

"While this incremental change is a far cry from the
'equalization' of crack and powder cocaine the Commission recommended
in 1995, it is a long overdue first step to improving crack
sentences," said Julie Stewart, president of Families Against
Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), a national, nonpartisan sentencing reform
organization.

For 15 years the Commission has researched crack cocaine and its
penalties and concluded current federal crack sentences are
unjustifiable. Among the findings from its 2002 report are that crack
penalties

1. exaggerate the relative harmfulness of crack cocaine
2. sweep too broadly and apply most often to lower level offenders
3. overstate the seriousness of most crack cocaine offenses and fail
to provide adequate proportionality
4. and mostly impact minorities

Despite this evidence, Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission have
been in a stalemate for a dozen years over how to improve crack
sentences. During that time, nearly 56,000 people were sentenced under
the harsh federal crack cocaine statutes and guidelines. Now, the
U.S. Sentencing Commission has taken the bold step of saying enough is
enough.

"While the Commission's amendment does not solve the problem of
excessive crack cocaine penalties it moves us closer to that goal,
which is why FAMM supports the Commission's crack amendment," says
Stewart.

Congress has six months to consider the amendments before they
automatically take effect on November 1, 2007. Congress would have to
pass bills in both the House and Senate to stop the amendment. It is
highly unlikely such an action will happen this year. If passed, the
amendment will not affect people sentenced before November 1, 2007.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission's crack guideline amendment will
be accompanied by language to Congress that urges them to address the
crack cocaine mandatory minimum. Combined changes to the sentencing
guidelines and mandatory minimum statutes for crack cocaine would
result in more appropriate penalties for roughly 5,000 defendants who
face crack sentences each year. With their faces in mind, FAMM
applauds the Commission for acting on an injustice that can no longer
be tolerated.

Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) is a national, nonpartisan,
nonprofit organization that promotes just sentencing policies. For more
information, visit: www.famm.org.

What's wrong with the drug war?

2007-04-20T11:42:00.002+13:00

What's Wrong With the Drug War?

taken from web site
www.drugpolicy.org

Everyone has a stake in ending the war on drugs. Whether you’re a parent concerned about protecting children from drug-related harm, a social justice advocate worried about racially disproportionate incarceration rates, an environmentalist seeking to protect the Amazon rainforest or a fiscally conservative taxpayer you have a stake in ending the drug war. U.S. federal, state and local governments have spent hundreds of billions of dollars trying to make America “drug-free.” Yet heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and other illicit drugs are cheaper, purer and easier to get than ever before. Nearly half a million people are behind bars on drug charges - more than all of western Europe (with a bigger population) incarcerates for all offenses. The war on drugs has become a war on families, a war on public health and a war on our constitutional rights.

Many of the problems the drug war purports to resolve are in fact caused by the drug war itself. So-called “drug-related” crime is a direct result of drug prohibition's distortion of immutable laws of supply and demand. Public health problems like HIV and Hepatitis C are all exacerbated by zero tolerance laws that restrict access to clean needles. The drug war is not the promoter of family values that some would have us believe. Children of inmates are at risk of educational failure, joblessness, addiction and delinquency. Drug abuse is bad, but the drug war is worse.

Visit these pages to see how the drug war affects all aspects of our lives:

Drug War Funding
Pain Underprescribing
Terrorism
Informants
Environmental Consequences
Economics
Mandatory Minimum Sentences
Voter Disenfranchisement
Public Health Crisis
Access to Treatment
Higher Education Act
Public Benefits
Forced Evictions

Louisvillle Church group CLOUT says Stop the Revolving Door.

2007-04-19T12:28:00.000+13:00

Group wants to rehabilitate criminals, stop 'revolving door'

March 20, 2007 01:51 PM

By Mark Schnyder

Courier Journal

(LOUISVILLE) -- A lot of criminals end up breaking the law repeatedly, going in and out of jail their entire lives. Now an organization made up of area church congregations is calling on Kentucky to stop the revolving door at state prisons. WAVE 3 Investigator Mark Schnyder has more.

It was a Monday night sermon where the participants hope passion can solve a problem.

"Me and my colleagues in the ministry are tired of burying young people, victims of drug murders -- we're going to do something about it," said the Rev. Elvyn Hamilton to a crowd of about 700 CLOUT (Citizens of Louisville Organized and United Together) members at the 4th Avenue United Methodist Church Monday night.

In response, the crowd chanted: "Stop the revolving door! Stop the revolving door!"

Hundreds of people from more than a dozen metro area churches chanted CLOUT's mantra. Meanwhile, Louisville residents, organized and united together, put some of the state justice system's heaviest hitters on the spot.

"Do you agree we have a problem with the revolving door?" Bishop Walter Jones asked Kentucky Department of Corrections Commissioner John Rees.

His response: "yes."

Bishop Walter Jones called on Rees and State Supreme Court Chief Justice Joseph Lambert to commit to doing more to treat people going through the system with drug problems so they don't keep coming back. But amid the calls for more programs, treatment centers and drug courts, a revelation: it's already happening.

In the last nine years in Kentucky the number of drug courts -- which put offenders on a road to recovery -- have grown from 12 to 60.

"Drug courts have grown dramatically," Justice Lambert said. "Now every person who enters drug court does not leave successfully, there are failures. But the failures are vastly outweighed by the successes."

Justice Lambert and Commissioner Rees did not agree to every request CLOUT called for. Rees would not commit to creating a new training program for drug and alcohol addiction for the probation and paroles office, and Justice Lambert couldn't promise a licensed treatment component in Jefferson County's drug court program.

But CLOUT leaders say they got some things done.

The director of Metro Corrections was also invited to take the heat, but he did not attend. CLOUT wants him to develop a new drug treatment program for jail inmates.

Online Reporter: Mark Schnyder

Online Producer:

Stop the prison revolving door. . .

2007-04-19T12:13:00.001+13:00

Stop the Revolving Door
By Mark A.R. Kleiman

DLC | Blueprint Magazine | September 25, 2002
Paschal: Our first organizing meeting of a coalition of persons
and organizations called Kentuckians Expective Effective Criminal Justice, held this morning, April 18, with 20 persons present, concluded that the focus should be
Stopping the Relvoving Door.
I will be posting articles and discussions
under this focus for our work so that we all
might be better informed and aware.
Notice some of the facts offered in the first
paragraph below.

No matter how much we pat ourselves on the back about the recent declines in U.S. crime rates, the fact remains that crime is about three times as prevalent in America today as it was as recently as 1960. Even now, our homicide rate remains at about five times the level of that in the rest of the developed world.

The consequences of high crime rates go far beyond the numbers. Much of America's social geography is dictated by the desire to avoid victimization. What else could explain the coexistence of high housing prices and residential abandonment in the same metropolitan areas? Everyone knows that poverty leads to crime; less attention is paid to the ways that crime leads to poverty by driving jobs and services away from the places poor people live.

Given how much nonsense office-seekers are forced to talk when they discuss crime, its declining salience as a political issue is a welcome development. But controlling crime remains a central challenge for American society; we continue to face the threat that an upsurge in crime (such as the one the United States suffered in the 1960s or the one Western Europe has been suffering recently) will give anti-progressive political forces another great political opportunity.

So what is to be done? Arguments about crime control tend to focus on how to change the behavior of criminals. In some ways, that's the easy part; criminals respond when their behavior has immediate and predictable consequences. The hard part is changing the behavior of officials to make those things happen. Reducing the crime rate is more a public management problem than a criminology problem. And one key to management success, as we're learning from other areas of public policy, is performance accountability.

Nowhere has the accountability principle been more decisively demonstrated than in New York City's declining crime rates. The crime drop had many causes, both inside and outside the police department. But the one that stands out was the bold announcement by Police Commissioner Bill Bratton that he was willing to be held quantitatively accountable for crime reduction. Putting his own reputation on the line -- and betting it on measurable results rather than on a laundry list of specific policies or organizational changes -- enabled Bratton to hold his subordinates similarly accountable. Faced with the pressure to perform and to perform in the foreseeable future rather than in the sweet by-and-by, the New York Police Department found itself capable of astonishing accomplishments. The rate of murders went down by three-quarters and is staying down; property crime rates kept pace.

For some reason, no one seems to have thought of extending this accountability revolution to corrections agencies. Yet holding corrections officials accountable for recidivism among their probationers, parolees, and prison alumni is more obviously justified than holding the police responsible for the overall crime rate. Many things influence the crime rate in a city beyond the effectiveness of its police department. But if arrests for serious new crimes are much less frequent among probationers in one probation office than among similar probationers in another office, or if the graduates of one medium-security prison are much more likely to be back inside within six months than the graduates of another, then the worse-performing institution might have something to learn from the better-performing institution. Since most crime, especially serious violent crime, is committed by repeat offenders, focusing on the offenders whose names we know needs to be central to any serious crime control strategy.

Current performance wouldn't be hard to improve on. In most states, an offender leaving prison has a worse-than-even chance of staying out for three years, and there's no evidence that routine probation supervision has any crime-control benefit whatsoever. Some specific programs are known to work. Frequent drug tests for probationers and parolees, with immediate and predictable, but not severe, sanctions for every incident of drug use, can reduce hard-drug consumption, a strong predictor of recidivism. In-prison literacy programs can improve employability, and getting a job is a strong correlate of going straight.

Part of the reason such commonsense approaches aren't widely adopted is that the whole project of turning offenders' lives around -- inducing them to live as citizens rather than predators -- was tainted by its association with a kindhearted but muddle-headed version of penology. When crime was low, some influential prison officials and academics tried to reinvent prisons and probation and parole agencies as primarily service institutions. The announced goal -- rehabilitation -- became entangled with what turned out to be a fundamentally wrong idea of how to achieve it, which might be summed up as "be nice to criminals and criminals will be nice to you."

Over the past 35 years, a political sea change, driven by rising crime, made a hard line toward offenders the only publicly acceptable attitude. Naturally, but unfortunately, this led to the virtual abandonment of the idea that rehabilitation ought to be a central focus of prison administration. Somehow, giving up the idea of being nice to criminals came to imply giving up any intention of making them other than criminal. To talk of rehabilitation now marks a politician or corrections official as an unrealistic, soft-on-crime bleeding heart.

The adversarial nature of the courtroom process fosters the illusion that criminal justice is a zero-sum game. In fact, since both crime and punishment are expensive, offenders and the rest of us have a mutual interest in offenders' turning from crime to honest work. In particular, those who portray themselves politically as advocates for the victims of crime ought to be more concerned than they seem to be with the fact that unrehabilitated criminals are future threats. Yet in the current political climate, rehabilitation, in the hardheaded sense of reducing future criminality, plays virtually no role in the design, execution, or evaluation of corrections programs.

At the same time, imprisonment has exploded. We now have about 2 million people behind bars, about four times the incarceration rate of a generation ago, a level unprecedented in American history and unmatched in the developed world. Poor urban communities are being hit with a flood of prison returnees, and that flood is beginning to show up in rising crime rates, but no one is turning to the wardens and demanding that they become part of the solution.

Perhaps surprisingly, the private prison industry has utterly failed to demonstrate either cost savings or reduced recidivism rates, other than by selecting the least-cost, least-likely-to-repeat offenders. Recidivism ought to be an easy case for incentive contracting, but that isn't the way private-prison contracts are drawn. And for some reason nonprofit groups have almost no participation in adult institutional corrections, though they play very important roles in dealing with juvenile offenders and in providing some post-release programming. A little not-for-profit competition based on recidivism rates might help jump-start the interest of the public systems in installing one-way exits instead of revolving doors.

Of course, any contracting-out approach confronts its own challenges: building accountability into the contracts and (even harder) getting that accountability enforced in the face of the political muscle that contractors, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, virtually always wield.

But whatever we do about prison privatization, the first step in reforming corrections is measuring the crime control performance of the existing corrections agencies.

The case for accountability doesn't rest on any specific theory of what would bring about rehabilitation. It rests on two basic propositions: that recidivism isn't completely insensitive to the way our corrections agencies conduct themselves, and that the people who work in those agencies and run them have the skill and ingenuity to make better things happen, given the appropriate authority and the appropriate incentives. Being accountable for next month's numbers concentrates the organizational mind wonderfully; it can, at best, create a sort of every-cat-is-good-as-long-as-it-catches-mice pragmatism. Real accountability can make even ideas "not invented here" seem worth trying once.

Formally, the problem is similar to the problem of bringing accountability to public education. Consider the parallels:

Both the tasks are important and both are done unevenly and less than optimally.

In each case, it's not hard to figure out some key things we ought to be measuring: reading ability in the schools and crimes committed by offenders in the corrections case.

In neither case are those easy-to-measure things the only aspects of performance worth worrying about (we should consider curiosity among students, for example, or prisoner-on-prisoner assault, or the employment rate among probationers), and therefore both systems require multiple measures of process and outcome to avoid creating perverse incentives for managers (for example, to drop art and music classes from schools or to ignore infectious disease and other health issues in correctional settings).

Since both students and offenders differ enormously among themselves and across institutions, any reasonable accountability system in either domain needs to adjust for the client mix or we just wind up punishing the institutions that get stuck with the hard cases.

Random variation makes it both essential and hard to develop clever statistical measures to make sure we're not rewarding and punishing "noise" in the test scores or the crime rates.

There's a tension between the need for adequate sample sizes to deal with the "noise" problem and the desirability of moving accountability down to the lowest practicable level of the organization. The more we can hold individual teachers or probation officers accountable for results, the better; but the measurement problems get harder as the numbers of cases get smaller.

Dukenfield's Law ("Anything worth winning is worth cheating for") makes it necessary to guard against a variety of ways to game the scoring system.

Accountability is no panacea. Probation departments, in particular, are so badly starved for both resources and authority that dramatic improvements can't really be expected without changes in budgets and laws. But right now the link between probation budgets and crime rates hasn't been established. In the absence of outcome measures that elected leaders care about, making the political case for the necessary changes will remain virtually impossible. Mayors must learn to ask, and probation commissioners must be able to answer the question, "How much will it cost me to get the re-arrest rate down by 10 percent, and what's that going to do for the overall crime rate?" When they can do that, the battle won't be won, but at least we'll be ready to start fighting it.

Mark A.R. Kleiman is professor of policy studies at UCLA and chairman of BOTEC Analysis Corp. in Cambridge, Mass.

Blue Ribbon Sentencng commission collapses, by Robert Lawson, UK Law faculty.

2007-04-18T16:11:00.000+13:00

Paschal:

Pardon me for being slow in getting back to you on this question. As we near the end of the semester, things get very busy and I have been in and out of my office for the last week and excessively busy. Sorry.

The Blue Ribbon Sentencing Commission went up in smoke, in response to organized opposition from state prosecutors (led by Ray Larson, I believe, and Attorney General Stumbo). The Commission only had two meeting, the last of which was overwhelmed by attendance of prosecutors and law enforcement types. The Commission was a good idea, had a representative membership, but never got around to considering any of the problems. It never filed a report.

I'm not sure I can identify a "contact" person for you in Frankfort. The Chief Justice (Joe Lambert) is still interested in these problems, he was the one who took the initiative to form the Blue Ribbon Sentencing Commission, but its history is described above.

If I had to identify someone who would provide hope for some kind of reform effort, I would probably identify Rep. Kathy Stein (from Lexington) or Sen. Robert Stivers (Manchester) as persons who understand the importance of these issues and might be able to withstand the pressure from anti-reform forces. As you may know, Rep. Stein is the chair of the House Judiciary Committee (where criminal law reform would locate itself); she came to see me right before the last session, got copies of my articles and indicated that she wanted to do something on this.

I think the session was so disjointed and fractured that nothing was done on anything. But I know she is interested. Senator Stivers (a Republican) is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee; he was on the Blue Ribbon Sentencing Commission and was very unhappy about the way it collapsed. He wrote an angry letter to the Chief Justice (sending me a copy) blaming the Attorney General for the early collapse of the Commission. I have been told that there is another legislator who agrees with my assessment of the situation; he is Senator Dan Kelly from Springfield (one of the leaders in the Senate). This is the best I can do on giving you a "contact" in Frankfort.

I have been trying to get lawyers and judges interested in this problem. I have tried to generate interest in the organized bar but so far have not had a great deal of success. However, lots more of them now know about the problem than before I starting writing and preaching about the situation. And I have yet to encounter one (not in law enforcement or prosecution) who does not show concern.

The President of the Kentucky Bar Association is Robert Ewald; the Executive Director is James Deckard. Deckard was general counsel for Chief Justice Lambert when the Sentencing Commission was formed and he knows of these problems. The Kentucky Bar Association could be a significant force for motivating law and policy makers to look at reform if the Association would examine the problem (as I have asked) and take a
public position (providing some wiggle room for political leaders who must do the reform itself).

If you get your movement underway, the Bar Association would be one place where you might exert some meaningful nfluence (just by letting this group know that Bob Lawson is not the only voice of concern in this area). I think the Interfaith Alliance group would be one whose voice might be heard.

Hope this helps some. Bob Lawson

DELAWARE House OKs sentencing reform bill, Apr 4, 2007

2007-04-18T09:10:00.000+13:00

Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Delaware House OKs sentencing reform bill
By Drew Volturo, Delaware State News

DOVER — After a lengthy debate that pitted police officers and prosecutors against defense attorneys and retired judges, the state House of Representatives passed a bill Tuesday eliminating minimum mandatory sentencing for drug offenders.

House Bill 71, which passed 26-13 after a two-hour debate, would change mandatory prison sentences to presumptive terms left to the discretion of the sentencing judge.

Under existing state law, a judge must impose the minimum mandatory sentence provided in the statute. The presiding officer cannot weigh any mitigating factors to possibly lessen the prison term.

“Minimum mandatory sentencing transfers sentencing power from judges to the prosecuting attorneys,” said Edmund N. “Ned” Carpenter II, a former defense attorney and deputy attorney general and past president of the Delaware State Bar Association.

“It gives the prosecuting attorney the power to threaten the defendant if he doesn’t plead guilty to various charges.”

House Speaker Rep. Terry R. Spence, R-New Castle, said he sponsored HB 71 because the debate surrounding minimum mandatory sentencing has been brewing for several years but never made it to the House floor.

“Hearing both sides, I felt that the time has come this year for this issue to be fully discussed on the floor,” Rep. Spence said.

“The sentiment from the majority of the House was to put the final decision in a judge’s hands.”

But members of the law enforcement community, including the attorney general’s office and the Delaware Police Chiefs’ Council, said the sentencing statute applies mainly to the “worst of the worse,” and is an effective tool for them to use.

State Prosecutor Richard Andrews said of 6,300 drug arrests in 2005, minimum mandatory sentencing was only applied to 133 convicts.

“Mandatory sentencing is being handed out to people who rightly deserve to spend at least a couple years in prison,” Mr. Andrews said.

“By weakening the drug laws, our streets are going to become more violent and we will see more crime,” said Newport Police Chief Michael Capriglione, president of the Delaware Police Chief’s Council.

Dover Police Chief Jeffrey Horvath brought props with him to testify before the House Tuesday.

The chief, who has said numerous times that he believes 90 percent of all crimes are drug-related in some fashion, held up a baggie with 10 grams of crack cocaine, which sells for $500 on the streets.

“Almost all of the shootings in Dover are related to this,” Chief Horvath said. “This is a violent crime and my stats prove it.

“Mandatory sentencing makes it fair for everyone who can’t afford a (high-priced) attorney.”

Chief Horvath said police would “have to work a hell of a lot harder” if the bill passes because drug dealers would be on the streets quicker.

Retired Wilmington police officer Rep. Dennis P. Williams, D-Wilmington, said minimum mandatory sentencing provides a necessary tool for police to get additional information from suspects and often leads to bigger arrests.

“They put themselves in this position,” Rep. Williams said. “I don’t see the big issue here. This is just a lot of fanfare.

“It’s a bad piece of legislation.”

Former state Supreme Court justice Joseph T. Walsh said judges already have a great deal of discretion in sentencing when it comes to capital murder cases. The judge can go against a 12-0 recommendation for death.

Judges, Mr. Walsh said, take that responsibility seriously.

“In each of those situations, I held a person’s liberty literally in my hand,” Mr. Walsh said. “I had an obligation to impose a fair sentence, fair to the defendant and fair to society.

“It’s a very difficult balance. With the advent of minimum mandatory sentencing, there is no balance. The focus is entirely on the offense.”

A similar measure died in the House last year when the chamber did not act on it.

Opponents to the proposal have noted that the General Assembly approved a bill a few years ago that reduced mandatory minimum sentences for lesser drug crimes, and that there’s no need for further action.

That 2003 law increased minimum mandatory sentences for violent crimes such as manslaughter, but lowered minimum terms for some drug offenses and increased the minimum weight of cocaine needed to establish the crime of trafficking from 5 grams to 10 grams.

The actual vote in the House Tuesday was delayed by about 20 minutes when legislators and attorneys couldn’t agree on how many votes were needed for passage.

The chamber typically has 41 members, which means that it would take 21 votes to pass most legislation.

But there currently are two vacancies, which raised the issue of whether it would take only 20 votes to clear the House.

Four House attorneys split in their interpretation of state law, so acting speaker Rep. William A. Oberle Jr., R-Newark, decided it would take 21 votes.

In the end, it didn’t matter, as HB 71 got 26 votes in favor.

The bill goes to the Senate for consideration.

Gov. Ruth Ann Minner said she is receptive to the idea of eliminating minimum mandatory sentencing but needs to see the final version of the legislation before deciding whether to sign it.

“We’ll see how it comes to us,” Gov. Minner said. “It has three amendments attached to it already.”

Post your opinions in the Public Issues Forum at newszap.com

Staff writer Drew Volturo

can be reached at 741-8296

or dvolturo@newszap.com

Worst Crisis in US is faced by Black Men, according to National Urban League

2007-04-18T05:08:00.000+13:00

Published on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 by Associated Press

Group Says Worst Crisis in US Faced by Black Men

by David Crary

NEW YORK — Citing bleak data on incarceration, joblessness, and AIDS, the National Urban League said yesterday that problems facing black men represent America’s most serious social crisis and proposed an aggressive campaign to provide them with more opportunities.The 97-year-old black empowerment organization, in its annual State of Black America report, called for universal early-childhood education, more programs for dropouts and former offenders, and expanded use of all-male schools emphasizing mentoring and longer class hours.

“Empowering black men to reach their full potential is the most serious economic and civil rights challenge we face today,” said Urban League president Marc H. Morial.

“Ensuring their future is critical, not just for the African-American community, but for the prosperity, health, and well-being of the entire American family.”

According to the report, African-American men are more than twice as likely to be unemployed as white males.

They are nearly seven times more likely to be incarcerated, with average jail sentences about 10 months longer than those of white men, the report said.

In addition, it said, black males ages 15 to 34 are nine times more likely than whites to be killed by firearms and nearly eight times as likely to have AIDS.

“I could rattle off the names of African-American men who have overcome the odds . . . But for all the Barack Obamas, Tony Dungys, and Colin Powells out there . . . there are many more black men who face very limited opportunities,” Morial said.

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org

URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/17/577/

Presidential Candidates ignore the failed drug war.

2007-04-06T11:11:00.000+13:00

DEAFENING SILENCE OF DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES

by Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post

While all the top candidates are vying for the black and Latino vote, they are completely ignoring one of the most pressing issues affecting those constituencies: the failed War on Drugs, a war that has morphed into a war on people of color.

Consider this: according to a 2006 ACLU report, African Americans make up 15 percent of drug users, but account for 37 percent of those arrested on drug charges, 59 percent of those convicted, and 74 percent of all drug offenders sentenced to prison. Or consider this: America has 260,000 people in state prisons on nonviolent drug charges; 183,200 (more than 70 percent) are black or Latino.

Such facts and figures have been bandied about for years. But what to do about the legion of nonviolent -- predominantly minority -- drug offenders has long been an electrified third-rail in American politics, a subject to be avoided at all costs by our political leaders, who fear being incinerated on contact for being soft on crime.

You might have thought this would change during a spirited Democratic presidential campaign. But a quick search of the top Democratic hopefuls' websites reveals that not one of them -- not Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, not John Edwards, not Joe Biden, not Chris Dodd, not Bill Richardson -- even mentions the drug war, let alone offers any solutions.

The silence coming from Clinton and Obama is particularly deafening.

Obama has written eloquently about his own struggle with drugs, but has not addressed the tragic effect the war on drugs is having on African American communities.

As for Clinton, she flew into Selma to reinforce her image as the wife of "the first black president," and has made much of her plan to attract female voters, but has ignored the suffering of poor, black women right in her own backyard.

Located down the road from her Chappaqua home are two prisons housing female inmates, Taconic and Bedford. Forty-eight percent of the women in Taconic are there for nonviolent drug offenses; 78% of those in the prison are African-American or Hispanic. And Bedford, the state's only maximum security prison for women, is home to some of the worst victims of New York's draconian Rockefeller drug laws -- mothers and grandmothers whose first brush with the law resulted in their being locked away for 15 years or more on nonviolent drug charges.

Yet even though these prisons are so nearby, Clinton has turned a blind eye to the plight of the women locked away there, notably refusing to speak out on their behalf.

Our political leaders' avoidance of this issue comes with a very stiff price (and not just the more than $50 billion a year we're spending on the failed drug war). The toll is paid in shattered families, devastated inner cities, and wasted lives (with no apologies for using that term).

During the ten years I've been writing about the injustice of the drug war, I've repeatedly seen politicians pay lip service to doing something about it, then duck and watch as the sickening status quo claimed more victims. Here in California, of the 171,000 inmates jamming our wildly overcrowded prisons, 36,000 are nonviolent drug offenders.

I remember in 1999 asking Dan Bartlett, then the campaign spokesman for candidate George Bush, about Bush's position on the outrageous disparity between the sentences meted out for possession of crack and those given for possession of powder cocaine - a disparity that has helped fill America's prisons with black low-level drug users. Federal sentencing guidelines dictate that judges impose the same five-year prison sentence for possession of five grams of crack or 500 grams of powder cocaine.

"The different sentencing for crack cocaine and powder cocaine is something that there's no doubt needs to be addressed," Bartlett told me. But in the more than six years since Bush and Bartlett moved into the White House, the problem has gone unaddressed. No doubt about it.

Maybe the president will suddenly wake up and decide to take on the issue five days before he leaves office. That's what Bill Clinton did, writing a 2001 New York Times op-ed in which he trumpeted the need to "immediately reduce the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences" -- conveniently putting aside the fact that he had the power to solve it for eight years and did nothing.

When it mattered, he maintained an imperial silence. Then, when it didn't, he became Captain Courageous. And he lamented the failures of our drug policy, acting as though he had been an innocent bystander rather than the chief executive presiding over these failures (indeed, the prison population doubled on his watch).

As a result of our political leaders' neglect, the disparity has continued to wreak havoc on the black community. Even though the majority of crack users are white or Hispanic, 80% of sentenced crack defendants are black. The injustice is so egregious that a conservative Republican senator, Jeff Sessions, is now leading the charge in Congress to ease crack sentences.

"I believe that as a matter of law enforcement and good public policy crack cocaine sentences are too heavy and can't be justified," says Sessions. "People don't want us to be soft on crime, but I think we ought to make the law more rational."

There's a talking point Hillary and Obama should adopt. It's both the right thing and the smart thing. Because of disenfranchisement statues, large numbers of black men who were convicted of drug crimes are ineligible to vote, even those who have fully paid their debt to society. A 2000 study found that 1.4 million African American men -- 13 percent of the total black male population -- were unable to vote in the 2000 election because of state laws barring felons access to the polls. In Florida, one in three black men is permanently disqualified from voting. Think that might have made a difference in the 2000 race? Our short-sighted drug laws have become the 21st Century manifestation of Jim Crow.

Shouldn't this be an issue Democratic presidential candidates deem worthy of their attention?

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-other-war-democratic_b_44063.html

Prisons Don't Work, study group concludes

2007-04-06T06:39:00.000+13:00

http://www.heartland.org/pdf/48301a.pdf

Fletcher promised Reforms for Justice programs, 2004.

2007-04-06T06:04:00.000+13:00

KENTUCKY SEES REFORM FOR JUSTICE PROGRAMS

Crime Control Digest, Jan 30, 2004

Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher has outlined a broad program of criminal justice reform that would include s reorganization of state police, prisons and courts and increased emphasis on drug offenses.

Kentucky also proposes eliminating the forensics backlog at the state police crime laboratories.

Lt. Gov. Steve Pence who supervises the State Police outlined the plan for the state crime laboratory in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Pence said the lab used a federal grant to hire two additional analysts and initiated a plan to reduce the number of tests. The lab would accept crime scene tests when they appeared to be adequate for the prosecution and would stop drug samples when a defendant agrees to enter a guilty plea.

Pence said the governor would reorganize the state police, corrections and juvenile justice agencies into a single public safety agency.

In a major change of direction, the governor would provide community-based treatment for drug offenders to reduce the prison population, head off the need to construct a new 1,000-bed facility and cut correctional costs.

Kentucky is one of the few states with beds available, but its population of 11,900 is approaching operational capacity of 12,162. About 3,600 are serving sentences for drug offenses.

The governor estimates drug treatment would cost an average of about $5,000 for each offender compared to an average of $13,600 the state spent for minimum-security prisoners in 2003 and an average of $17,294 for all prisoners.

The administration said drug treatment is expensive, but is cheaper and more effective than prison. The prison alternative also keeps drug offenders in the workforce and can stabilize families.

Expansion of drug courts and community treatment would also allow the state to postpone the scheduled June opening of the new $90 million Elliot County prison.

The drug treatment program would be part of a comprehensive attack on Kentucky's drug program that the state hopes to begin to put into place by mid-summer.

State health officials estimate 22,000 Kentuckians underwent substance abuse treatment last year and an estimated 348,000 have a substance abuse problem. Based on the Census Bureau's 2003 estimates that would be 8 percent of Kentucky's total population of 4.1 million persons.

KY county Jails: overview: 72% overcrowded.

2007-04-06T05:56:00.000+13:00

A report from the State Auditor, Crit Luallen,
KENTUCKY JAILS: A FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
February 2006 in two volumes
www.auditor.ky.gov.
Summary by Rev. Dr. Paschal Baute

OVERCROWDING EXISTS IN MORE THAN TWO OUT OF THREE OF OUR COUNTY JAILS. We treat drug and alcohol problems in Kentucky mainly by incarceration.

"This study was undertaken after numerous independent county government officials voiced concerns about rising costs of incarceration. In some instances as much as 45% of the county's general fund budget is being dedicated annually to cover local jail expenditures.

Highlights of the Executive Summary.

Kentucky had the nation's 5th highest percentage growth in inmate population in 2004. We ranked second nationally in percentage of State and Federal inmates held.

County Jails. Official capacity is 15,667, but the average is 2000 inmates higher. County jails cost $244 million in fiscal year 2005/

No systematic accounting method exists: costs and expenditures are not well tracked.

Cost of operating jails varies widely, with cost per day ranging from $19. To $84. With an average cost of 36.

Personnel costs, food costs and Health costs all vary widely

Food costs vary from .65/ Per meal to 4.66

Many counties believe that expanding their jails and attracting more state inmates will reduce the overall burden of costs.

Life - Safety jails are expensive to operate.

Overcrowding exists in 53 of the 73 full service and regional jails.

Management of medical costs is a major challenge. State reimbursement is inherently unfair, as some counties actually profit ... from this procedure.

Inconsistency in accounting for inmate fees creates an opportunity for additional revenue, as past due accounts reported total $22 million.

In 2005, the state paid $9.2 milliin less than its proportionate share of costs based on its share of inmate days.

The state's practice of leaving state prisoners in county jails (via controlled intake) or placing state prisoners in county jails either exacerbates or causes overcrowding in 53 of the state's full service and regional jails. Continued overcrowding may lead to federal lawsuits and liability issues.

(Paschal’s note: this ratio means that overcrowding exists in 72% of the county jails, that is, more than two out of three. I have offered volunteer programs in ministry and treatment for addiction in one county jail three times in 2005, and have not yet received either a hearing or even a review of a program well established and recommended by the staff, in the Fayette County Detention Center. I brought this fact to the Corrections Director’s attention at a Prison Ministry and Prison Reform conference organized by the local Catholic Conference in Lexington last fall. His response was that this refusal was against correctional policy.)

Auditors Recommendations are 14 in number and involve the Department of Corrections, other offices and the county jailors. "The lack of an integrated corrections system including the county jail means imbalance in he geographical distribution of facilities, the loss of opportunity fo rthe development of programming for subsets of the inmate population, such as drug or alcohol sbuse programs, unfair cost shifting to some local governments, and lost opportunity for improved efficiency and cost savings."

“It can be noted that the human cost of this inefficiency, overcrowding, and lack of programming to the inmate population is not addressed.”

Basically, Kentucky is treating ADI (Alcohol, Drug and Illegal Prescription substances) by incarceration. We are simply locking up our abusing citizens without any rehabilitation available. Since 80% of the offenses are ADI, we are jailing about ten to fifteen thousand addicts in our state. Recidivism averages about 60-70%. We have shown in the Drug Court programs in Fayette County that these return rates can be reduced to from 50% to 20%, depending on the oversight given.

Summary by Paschal Baute, March 15, 2006. These facts are taken from the Executive Summary, pp. 1-5 of Volume One. “Kentucky Jails: A Financial Overview” Auditors office. 105 Sea Hero Rd. Suite 2, Frankfort, Ky 40601. tel 502.573.0050

Rev. Dr. Paschal Baute, temporary chair, pastoral psychologist
Kentuckians Expecting Effective Justice (Corrections and Prisons) KEEJ
tel. 859-293-5302 Email pbbaute@qx.net. Www.paschalbaute.com

Incarceration is not an Equal Opportunity punishment

2007-04-05T14:06:00.000+13:00

Incarceration is not an equal opportunity punishment

On December 31, 2005, there were 2,193,798 people in U.S. prisons and jails. The United States incarcerates a greater share of its population, 737 per 100,000 residents, than any other country on the planet. But when you break down the statistics you see that incarceration is not an equal opportunity punishment.

U.S. incarceration rates by race, June 30, 2004:

Whites: 393 per 100,000
Latinos: 957 per 100,000
Blacks: 2,531 per 100,000

Gender is an important "filter" on the who goes to prison or jail, June 30, 2005:

Females: 129 per 100,000
Males: 1,371 per 100,000

Look at just the males by race, and the incarceration rates become even more frightening, June 30, 2005:

White males: 709 per 100,000
Latino males: 1,856 per 100,000
Black males: 4,682 per 100,000

If you look at males aged 25-29 and by race, you can see what is going on even clearer, June 30, 2005:

For White males ages 25-29: 1,682 per 100,000.
For Latino males ages 25-29: 3,884 per 100,000.
For Black males ages 25-29: 11,955 per 100,000. (That's 11.9% of Black men in their late 20s.)

Or you can make some international comparisons:
South Africa under Apartheid was internationally condemned as a racist society.

South Africa under apartheid (1993), Black males: 851 per 100,000
U.S. under George Bush (2004), Black males: 4,919 per 100,000

What does it mean that the leader of the "free world" locks up its Black males at a rate 5.8 times higher than the most openly racist country in the world?

Statistics as of June 30, 2005 from Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005, Table 13; Statistics as of June 30, 2004 from Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2004, Tables 14; except for the race rate statistics which are calculated from Table 13 and Census Bureau population estimates. South Africa figures from Marc Mauer, Americans Behind Bars: The International Use of Incarceration. All references to Blacks and Whites are for what the Bureau of Justice Statistics and U.S. Census refer to as "non-Hispanic Blacks" and "non-Hispanic Whites".)

Source: http://www.prisonsucks.com/

Drug Policy, outcomes and effects, summarized and questioned

2007-04-05T13:54:00.000+13:00

DRUG POLICY

Of America's 1.7 million prisoners, 1.4 million (80 percent) are incarcerated for drug or alcohol related offenses (alcohol is highly related to violent crime). We have imprisoned our children, turned our country into a gangland, and given up our most precious rights in the name of health! We fight a lost and immoral war instead of teaching our children values. Here are some problems with the policy of war on drugs:

It cannot be won as a practical matter. It is exactly like Prohibition. It is a victimless crime. Large amounts of profit ensure it can never be stopped.
It is prohibitively expensive as seen by statistics just for the jailing, let alone the enforcement. It criminalizes many who would not otherwise be, therefore it is a policy that cannot be moral. It is estimated that 78 million U.S. citizens have used illegal drugs. Should they all be barred from public office? Should they all be incarcerated? Laws that criminalize more than every third adult are not a good idea.
A policy that disproportionately jails so many young black men cannot be moral. It is a racist policy. By pushing the price of drugs, it leads to gangs and the economic collapse of legitimate work and values. It leads to more violent crime as users try to raise the great amounts of money needed for their habits. It destroys an entire segment of society, which should never be tolerated. If these were afluent whites in gangs, the drug laws would be overturned immediately. (Something like the decriminalization of Marijuana). 13 percent of drug users are black and 74 percent of all sentenced to prison for drugs are black. (Scientifc American, August 1999, page 25)
It causes the US to interfere in, abuse and destroy other countries like Columbia and Mexico, which is clearly immoral.
It causes US citizens to give up rights which they otherwise would not. It leads to enforcement procedures like the use of informers which has a corrosive effect on the moral fiber of the country. The great money, an estimated 67 billion dollars a year, leads to the inevitable corruption of officials.
Finally, the drug policy is immoral at its core. Everyone has the innate right to commit suicide. Therefore, any law enacted for safety or to protect the health of the users - like laws against suicide, smoking, alcohol, drugs - has no moral force. They are not permissible. It is simply some busybody telling you what to do. You wouldn't tolerate it from a jerk down the street, so you shouldn't tolerate it from a bunch of jerks down the street; Prudes imposing their rules on people they have no business bothering. Can it be moral to tell someone else how to live, when he is not bothering anybody? It is Big Brother. It is evil. If you are going to tell people how to live, why not be consistent and bring back Prohibition?
Alcohol is much worse healthwise than most other drugs. If health is the issue, how can it be healthy to have citizens buy drugs from unreliable pushers, or fly-by-night labs, or use common needles? Impure drugs are not healthy. Are jails healthy? Since prisoners get drugs in jail, how have you improved their health? If you balance the supposed hypothetical good (health) from this busybody policy with the evident evil, no sane person could be for it. If you don't want your kids to do drugs, teach them, but do not imprison them; do not take away their rights; do not give up your rights.

Source: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/law/prison.html

Effective Prisons Talking Points,

2007-04-05T13:39:00.000+13:00

Prison Reform Talking Points

by REBECCA TUHUS-DUBROW

[posted online on December 19, 2003]

The US prison system is exacting an increasingly heavy toll, both financial and human. Surging numbers of prisons hold more than 2 million inmates, giving the United States the highest rate of incarceration in the world.

Over the past few decades, the dominant criminal justice philosophy dropped rehabilitation in favor of sequestration and retribution. Opportunities for education, job training and drug treatment have fallen out of fashion. "Three strikes" and minimum sentencing laws have led to excessive punishments for millions of nonviolent offenders, especially in the misguided "war on drugs."

Any assessment of the US prison system is incomplete without considering the prison-industrial complex, a network of private corporations with a direct interest in increasing the number of prisoners. Dovetailing with these interests are politicians exploiting tough-on-crime rhetoric that plays well at election time. The reality is that punitive incarceration policies are a relatively ineffective means of reducing crime, especially drug use.

Fortunately, many states are starting to recognize the system's failure and experiment with rehabilitative programs such as job training and drug treatment. These programs are yielding impressive results in the form of reduced recidivism rates and taxpayer costs. But alternative solutions are in constant jeopardy because of the prevailing, federally driven ideology.

Prison Reform Talking Points

1. The conditions of prisons are inhumane. In many prisons, inmates are victims of physical abuse and excessive disciplinary action. Overcrowding and double-bunking are widespread. At the same time, many "supermax" prisons subject inmates to prolonged isolation in tiny cells, which frequently fosters mental illness. Prisoners also tend to have inadequate access to physical and mental healthcare.

2. Prisons are "crime factories." Instead of curbing criminal tendencies, prisons encourage them. Violent and aggressive behavior is standard and even rewarded. It's clear that time served in such conditions regularly creates violent criminals from nonviolent ones.

3. Recidivism rates are exceedingly high. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, more than two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested within three years. These figures underline the ineffectiveness of prison as a deterrent and a reformer. They also lead to a related criticism of prison trends: Increasingly, people are re-arrested on technical parole violations, such as missing an appointment with a parole officer, and returned to the system more quickly than in the past.

4. Prisons are expensive. According to CBS News, taxpayers are paying an estimated $40 billion a year for prisons. Feeding and caring for an inmate costs about $20,000 a year on average, and construction costs are about $100,000 per cell. The demand to build more prisons has often siphoned funds from the few existing treatment and education programs, leading to a vicious circle in which more prisons are needed because, partly due to the lack of these programs, more prisoners continue to come back.

5. Most of the growth in prison population has been for nonviolent offenders, especially those convicted on drug charges. Because of mandatory sentencing laws, over half of today's inmates are incarcerated on drug charges, despite evidence that treatment programs are much more effective at preventing future drug offenses.

6. The combined effects of disenfranchisement laws, inmate population trends and economic realities perpetuate a racial divide in society. Prisoners are disproportionately from minority communities. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on current rates of incarceration an estimated 32 percent of black males will enter prison during their lifetime, compared with 17 percent of Hispanic males and 5.9 percent of white males. Once released, many prisoners lack job skills and face employer suspicion. In most states convicted felons are not allowed to vote from prison; in twelve states, felons are disenfranchised for life. These factors contribute to widespread unemployment in minority communities as well as disproportionately meager electoral representation.

7. Under draconian laws, people can end up in jail for life for nonviolent crimes. Because of the ascendancy of "three strikes" laws, for example in California, it is increasingly common for people to receive life sentences for offenses such as drug possession and welfare fraud.

8. Most prisoners will be released into society, and are not prepared by prisons to participate productively. The culture of parole has changed dramatically over the past generation. Now there is much less individualized consideration of how well prepared an inmate is to leave prison. Less help is provided to facilitate that preparation, and fewer parole officers are available to ease the transition back into the community. Such trends are especially dangerous in light of the mental illness and violent tendencies that result from prison conditions.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040105&s=tuhusdubrow

Suggestions re this initiative

2007-03-31T14:34:00.000+13:00

Paschal,
You may not have heard that I am running for Commissioner of Agriculture
in the Republican primary.
The Primary is May 22. When elected to that position, I could so some
interesting work with prisoners and agriculture. I am also teaching tues
and thursdays at KSU.
I am still very interested in the prison issue, but have decided a can
have more influence on state policy if I have a little budget and staff to
do it with.
So Bottom Line is that I might be able to attend a meeting, but am
in no position to put much energy for about two months. After that, it
depends.
As I know you know, every issue related to prisons is related to
something else. My own view is that the group should have a broader
mission than sentencing reform, ie. tackle the whole issue of how we make
our societies safe and achieve effective justice. That may sound like
converting the whole world to christianity, but we could set priorities
within the group and sentencing reform could be mission one.
Other possible high priority might restoration of felon rights.

Two alternative suggestions for naming the group: Kentuckians for
Effective Justice or KEEP (Kentuckian Expecting Effective Prisons) .

That wont make us sound so "liberal" and give us a clever acronym that people can remember.
I have been traveling with Jon Larsen on the stump.

Best of luck and thanks for taking the leadership to keep
something moving.

Don Stosberg, March 30

Letters to the Editor

2007-03-30T21:14:00.000+13:00

This was published in the Herald-Leader and a shorter version later in the Kentucky Post.

April 28, 2005
Dear Editor:
Herald - Leader Editorial page

"Kentucky is 'Best' in something else."
Fastest Growth Rate in the Region?

Did the Herald - Leader reader notice that Kentucky's growth rate among Ohio Valley states clearly beats all the surrounding seven states in at least one area; Growth in prison population? Headline: "1 in 138 Americans is in Prison," Monday, April 25, page. A9.

In the number of prisoners in state and federal corrections, Kentucky'S rate of growth, compared with the average of the seven surrounding states, is not twice, not three times, but almost four times the average rate of all seven surrounding states, a percent change of +8.5 percent from 2003 to 2004.

Is this because we simply have that many more criminals in Kentucky? or possibly because our sentencing policies are now the harshest in the region? Who are these and how is this happening? The vast majority are there for drugs, using or selling.

Our local jails and prisons are overcrowded, sometimes so many in county jails that inmates are living in Third World conditions. Even when volunteer programs are offered, some county jail staff is too busy with the overcrowded warehousing of inmates to accept the offer.

We are paying so much for warehousing ($300 million per year in Kentucky) there is nothing left for rehabilitation. If we take time to examine the situation, we shall find that we are simply punishing addictive behavior by incarceration--mostly without rehabilitation, so 2/3 are back in jail within three years.

Are our current sentencing policies creating a new underclass of those trapped in addiction, joblessness and resentment?

Is this a system of justice? Are these policies protecting our communities, or in fact undermining our safety and security? Who will examine and speak to these issues?

Paschal Baute
4080 LOfgren Ct.
Lexington, Ky 40509
tel 293-5302
email pbbaute@paschalbaute.com

Background of interest and activity in Central Ky

2007-03-30T16:44:00.000+13:00

August 7, 2005

The Blue Ribbon Commission on Sentencing
C/o Chief Justice Joseph E. Lambert and
Lieutenant Governor Stephen B. Pence
700 Capitol Avenue
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

Dear Commissioners:

This letter comes to you from the Board of Directors of The Interfaith Alliance of the Bluegrass concerning the important opportunity currently before the Commission and the Commonwealth to revise Kentucky’s criminal sentencing guidelines. The Interfaith Alliance recently hosted two community forums during which the Commonwealth’s sentencing guidelines were much on the minds of those present. We heard from persons involved with this issue, including the results of research by University of Kentucky Law professor Robert Lawson. From these forums we learned that the Commonwealth’s current sentencing structure is not only unhelpful to the possible rehabilitation of persons convicted of crimes in our state, but has also sparked a growth in Kentucky’s prison population that will become increasingly burdensome, if not impossible, to maintain in the near future.

Certainly it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth to do everything within its legitimate power to ensure the safety of its citizens, the enforcement of its laws, and the carrying out of sentences duly imposed upon those convicted of crimes against property or person. Yet, these appropriate responsibilities must be pursued with an eye toward the value of all human life, the possibility of rehabilitation, and the root causes of crime. Slogans such as, “Get Tough on Crime,” and sentencing resulting from them, while superficially responding to society’s fear of crime, often do not lead to a more secure society. Instead, as in the case of Kentucky’s experience, they lead only to exploding prison populations that divert limited resources from the root causes of crime, such as entrenched poverty, inadequate education, and limited opportunity.

As a part of the interfaith community of Central Kentucky we urge you to seize this opportunity to change Kentucky’s criminal justice course from one of unreflective punishment, which in the end is not helpful to society, to a better course of reasonable and responsible sentencing. Reasonable and responsible sentencing will hold criminals accountable for their actions, keep open the possibility of rehabilitation, and not threaten to bankrupt our criminal justice system. In the long term, such a course change offers the greatest possibility for the security and prosperity of the Commonwealth and its citizens.

We look forward to following your work, and we offer our resources toward the adoption of sentencing guidelines that will benefit all Kentuckians.

Respectfully,

William B. Kincaid, President
The Interfaith Alliance of the Bluegrass

Endorsed by the Board of The Interfaith Alliance on July 20, 2005.