sentencing
Massachusetts Steps Away from Mandatory Minimums
Published November 19, 2009 @ 08:57AM PT
The Massachusetts Senate yesterday passed a bill that would open the possibility of parole for prisoners convicted of nonviolent drug crimes. Many were sentenced under mandatory minimum laws and aren't currently eligible for parole. Finally, amidst budget difficulties, another state is seeing the light.
On its website, Families Against Mandatory Minimums profiles Robert Anger, a Massachusetts prisoner who could potentially be eligible for parole if the bill becomes law. Anger, from Vermont, became addicted to OxyContin as a teenager and soon transitioned to heroin. He began selling cocaine to support his habit and was arrested in Massachusetts in 2004 buying cocaine worth $15,000. He was 22 when a judge sentenced him under mandatory statute to 15 years in prison, saying "I wish I had discretion" as he did it. His full story is here.
Could Hate Crime Laws Backfire?
Published November 18, 2009 @ 11:46AM PT
President Obama recently signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law -- expanding existing federal hate crimes laws to protect against assault based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability.
So why would the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, a pioneering group that works on behalf of transgender, transsexual, intersex and other gender non-conforming people, oppose it?
Sometimes friends and allies disagree. This is as it should be. In progressive circles, we can and should dispute strategy and tactics while still affirming our commitment to the same core set of shared values. Dissent gives our body politic a healthy workout. In that spirit, it seems healthy to consider the SRLP's opposition to a new law that was generally praised by progressive LGBT voices.
The group advances two primary arguments as to why the legislation is a "counterproductive response to the violence faced by LGBT people." First, it sees hate crime laws as expanding the tentacles of the current criminal justice system that already results in "staggering incarceration rates of people of color, poor people, queer people and transgender people." Second, the SRLP argues that evidence fails to show that hate crimes legislation actually works to deter or prevent violence against oppressed groups. Taken together, the basic proposition is that the new legislation is essentially another version of a "get tough on crime" measure that threatens to increase violence in oppressed communities rather than decrease it.
The Supreme Court and Why Age Matters
Published November 09, 2009 @ 04:41PM PT
The U.S. Supreme Court today heard long-awaited oral arguments on life without parole sentences for juveniles, and while the outcome is unclear, there seemed to be some agreement that age should be a factor in criminal sentences.
The defendants in the two cases before the Supreme Court today were seeking to show that it is cruel and unusual punishment -- a violation of the Eighth Amendment -- to sentence someone to life without parole for a crime committed as a juvenile. Both defendants were convicted of non-murders in Florida.
Chief Justice John Roberts (left) took control in oral arguments, according to Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog, and he seemed determined to persuade his colleagues that age should be a factor in determining a sentence. He and other justices, however, seemed opposed to finding that a certain age -- like 18 -- should be the constitutional cutoff for life without parole.
Doug Berman writes at Sentencing Law and Policy that Roberts has long taken an interest in the court's cloudy interpretation of "cruel and unusual," and he may be seizing this moment to make a play for clearing that up.
Smart on Crime in North Carolina
Published October 30, 2009 @ 06:19AM PT
A few years ago, the West End neighborhood of High Point, North Carolina, had a serious crime problem. Drug dealers controlled entire blocks, gun shots rang out at night. But now the streets are safer. Violence is down. And locals say a targeted, community-based approach to drugs and crime brought the change they needed.
A great story last week in the Economist checks in on High Point and finds solid evidence that the 'smart-on-crime' approach works.
High Point Police Chief Jim Fealy tells the Economist that his department did the normal thing for years, where officers would “come rolling in like an occupying army" and descend upon West End's rough blocks. It didn't work.
Fighting to Save Juvenile Life Without Parole
Published October 20, 2009 @ 10:30AM PT
The Heritage Foundation is worried that the playing field isn’t level in our criminal justice system. Juveniles sentenced to life without parole have the upper hand, the group says in a new paper, and the “activists” who oppose juvenile LWOP are threatening to take away this uniquely American punishment.
In a defensive, pro-punishment paper released this summer and by the conservative think tank, authors Andrew Grossman and Charles Stimson argue that its fine for the U.S. to be the only country with juvenile life without parole because we have a uniquely serious teen crime problem. They complain that irresponsible activists have monopolized the debate in favor of giving teens a second chance, and suggest that an important tool to “express society’s disapproval” of heinous crimes is in danger.
Ending the Cocaine/Crack Disparity
Published October 16, 2009 @ 07:30AM PT
A bill introduced in the U.S. Senate yesterday by Dick Durbin is aiming to end the sentencing disparity between cocaine and crack, an advocacy group says all of pieces are finally in place to make it happen, and Gawker missed the point.
Durbin's bill, the Fair Sentencing Act, was introduced with nine co-sponsors and would increase the amount of crack that triggers a five-year mandatory sentence. Under current law, possession of five grams of crack requires judges to hand down the five-year sentence, while 500 grams of cocaine carries the same penalty. This 100:1 ratio has long been pointed to by reformers as unnecessary, unfair and racially biased. A parallel bill has been introduced in the House.
Families Against Mandatory Minimums immediately released a statement supporting Durbin's legislation -- and asserting that we have the right policy environment for this reform to finally happen this year:
"The picture is now nearly complete – the White House and the Department of Justice have endorsed the complete elimination of the cocaine sentencing disparity, the Sentencing Commission has found the disparity unreasonable, and the House of Representatives and now the Senate have introduced legislation that would equalize crack and powder cocaine penalties," FAMM said in a statement.
Early Release Is an Easy Target
Published September 17, 2009 @ 06:38AM PT
Colorado is the newest battleground for the predictable and counterproductive early-release argument.
Gov. Bill Ritter has proposed releasing some prisoners six months before their sentences expire - and ending parole earlier than usual in some cases - to save the state nearly $20 million a year. Some of the savings would be used to improve post-release services, like housing and job assistance, and to transition the state toward lower-cost parolee monitoring using GPS. It's a balanced, reasonable and forward-looking plan. And the state attorney general hates it.
"I am concerned that the acceleration of mandatory parole for offenders who have not earned discretionary release will seriously compromise public safety,” AG John Suthers told the Denver Daily News.
The public discourse on crime and punishment has come a long way in recent years, but Suthers' knee-jerk fear of letting out the bad guys, who are apparently going to start killing immediately, shows us that we're not there yet. What Suthers surely realizes is that it's much more dangerous to keep someone locked up for six extra months and then push them out with the shirt on their back than to release them now but spend the savings on transition assistance. His comments are pure politics, and they don't help.
Of course early release programs should be focused on prisoners who have shown a willingness to succeed after prison. People convicted of minor crimes should be removed from the parole rolls so officers can focus on higher-risk parolees. I hope reform eventually goes even further than this, but we have so many people in prison who shouldn't be there, we should focus on them first.
This debate is playing out in states across the country: California, Kentucky, Washington and others are addressing the addiction to imprisonment in an effort to save cash. Time Magazine recently explored the question at the heart of the matter: does early release affect the crime rate?
