Change.org's Criminal Justice Blog

Death and Texas

Matt Kelley — 2009-11-20T08:06:00-08:00

Another week, another refusal by Texas to reconsider a death row case. Actually, make that two refusals.

Robert Lee Thompson, 34, was executed last night in Huntsville, just an hour after Gov. Rick Perry had declined to commute his sentence to life. Perry was presented a rare commutation recommendation from the state's Board of Pardons and Parole, which had voted 5-2 in favor of a life sentence for Thompson, who was convicted under the "law of parties" -- meaning he participated in the crime but didn't pull the trigger. Perry decided to ignore the board and authorize the execution.

In another case, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals yesterday rejected an appeal from Max Soffar (left), who has been on the state's death row for 28 years for a crime he says he didn't commit. Soffar, who is mentally ill, was convicted of killing four people in 1980 after giving what he and advocates say was a false confession.

Thompson's case isn't an innocence claim, but a question whether we should execute participants in murders, even when the killer isn't executed. He isn't an innocent bystander, but his execution should serve as a stark reminder of the arbitrariness of the system.

Thompson and another man, Sammy Butler, were allegedly on a crime spree in Houston when Butler shot and killed a 29-year-old convenience store clerk. Thompson didn't just stand there, however, he shot another clerk and apparently ran out of ammunition just before killing him. Butler got life without parole, Thompson was executed last night.

Max Soffar is a different story. Soffar's attorneys say he was convicted based on a false confession and courts have repeatedly denied him the chance to prove his innocence. He is represented by attorneys at the ACLU and the Texas Innocence Network, and his appeals won't end with yesterday's rejection. But it's a setback and a clear sign of a broken system that refuses to hear evidence of innocence before it sends an innocent person to death.

"Once again, this case demonstrates that serious error riddles the criminal justice system," said Brian Stull, staff attorney with the ACLU Capital Punishment Project. "When the state seeks a person's death as punishment, we must demand a process that produces accurate and reliable results. When an innocent man sits on death row for 28 years having never received a fair trial, when juries are not allowed to hear the evidence, and when appeals courts do not intervene to fix these problems, no one can trust the process."

Another Texas death row case I've covered here recently is that of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004 for allegedly setting a fire that killed his three daughters. Several arson experts have reviewed the case since his execution, and the unanimous consent is that there is no evidence it was intentionally set. Last week, the Texas State Senate heard testimony from the new chairman of a state forensic science panel.

Of the 49 executions so far in the U.S. in 2009, 23 have been in Texas. For the Lone Star State to keep up its pace of executions, the state must be willing to set aside doubts about innocence and fairness. The result of this commitment to frequent executions is guaranteed injustice.

(Views expressed here are mine alone and don't represent any of the organizations involved in these cases.)

Crowdfunded Court Reporting

Matt Kelley — 2009-11-20T06:15:00-08:00

This week, a reporter from San Francisco public radio station KALW is spending her days in Oakland courtrooms, taking in all of the action (and inaction). She's reporting for a story funded by individuals through the website Spot.us, on the daily activity in a criminal court -- and she's blogging about what she sees, letting us in on both the process of reporting a story like this and the day-to-day workings of a court that the media usually misses in its 800-word story about a murder conviction.

So far, reporter Rina Palta has seen some high-level cases, more than one might expect from the daily grind of a criminal court. She wrote on Tuesday about watching arguments from both sides of a death penalty sentencing hearing. The proceedings piqued her curiosity about jury selection and she spent the next day watching lawyers interview potential jurors in a case where the state was seeking to label a man a sexually violent predator, making him eligible for lifetime civil commitment.

Together, Spot.us and KALW are exploring a new method of covering our criminal justice system, and there's great potential here. Criminal justice reform can't happen until the system's failures and successes become human stories to which we can connect. Crowd-funded reporting offers a chance to shine a spotlight on the invisible people within the system.

Palta will be blogging during her two weeks in the Alameda courts and will be reporting on what she finds on KALW's Crosscurrents show.

But the project won't finish there -- if you like what you hear, please chip in $20 toward the next piece of this project, a report on parolee integration in East Oakland and San Francisco's Mission. There's $959 to go to fully fund this second installment of the story, and the Harnisch Foundation is matching all donations -- so we need less than $500 from donors to make part two happen.

Photo (not the Oakland court) by Maveric2003

Massachusetts Steps Away from Mandatory Minimums

Matt Kelley — 2009-11-19T08:57:00-08:00

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.

Several states are reevaluating mandatory minimum and three-strike laws as they face budget shortfalls. These programs are being cut because they're expensive, and because they don't work. Yes, Robert made a serious mistake and he was more than a simple drug user. But he had begun to turn his life around with his family's help before his first day in prison. His case is another example that a short sentence could have the same impact as long one. We don't need to keep him away from society for 22 years for our safety. He needed a wakeup call, and he got it. Now let's give him another chance.

A Somali Judge’s Assassination and the Struggles of a Tattered System

Matt Kelley — 2009-11-19T05:39:00-08:00

An excellent post yesterday from Daniel J Gerstle on the War and Peace blog offers important -- and highly personal -- background on the tragic story of a Somali judge’s recent assassination.

Judge Sheikh Mohamad Abdi Aware was shot and killed outside his mosque last week, allegedly by separatist leaders or pirates angry with him for handing down harsh sentences to pirates and criminal kingpins.

Daniel writes about the time he spent in Somalia conducting the first review of juvenile justice in the country got the UN. He writes that he struggled to come to grips with a weak, fledgling court system that was torn between traditional, Islamic and state law. His post makes clear the incredible courage of people like Judge Aware to stand up to violent factions when in an attempt to establish the rule of law in a war-torn land. Daniel writes:

Judge Aware's surviving colleagues have near their reach the reigns of law for northeastern Somalia. With success there, chances are better to bring greater rule of law to the south. But their number, those who can equally satisfy not only the state but also the Islamic and traditional leadership, which requires gravitas, are dwindling.

First-hand accounts like Daniel's are critical to understanding the challenges faced by courts in developing countries that have suffered the governmental breakdown of years of war. Even in a fully functioning democracy, the tension between Islamic Shariah law, common law and human rights can be difficult to navigate fairly and with cultural sensitivity. In a country like Somalia, where courts are fighting for legitimacy and relevance, this minefield can be nearly impossible.

Read Daniel's post here.

Could Hate Crime Laws Backfire?

Colin Starger — 2009-11-18T11:46:00-08:00

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.

In addition to these arguments against the Act on its own terms, the SLRP also expressed dismay that the legislation was joined to a military spending bill that included $130 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, stating: "Killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan protects no one, inside or outside of U.S. borders."

In considering these claims, critics of SRLP's position could fairly counter that the unfortunate joining of the Act to a military spending bill says nothing about the content of the legislation itself. Furthermore, the SRLP's arguments seem to underestimate the symbolic value of mainstream legislation widely proclaimed to secure LGBT rights.

In the end though, the question of whether or not the act will deter hate-based violence or instead increase incarceration rates in oppressed communities is an important empirical one. It is a question that can only be answered by paying close attention both to the implementation of the law and its relationship to evolving trends in our truly horrendous system of mass incarceration. For this reminder to pay attention to the bigger picture of the struggle for justice, even those who disagree should be grateful for the SRLP critique of progressive strategy.

Image via London Metropolitan Police

Open-Sourcing Our Courts

Matt Kelley — 2009-11-18T06:04:00-08:00

Most records and documents created and filed within court systems and police departments in the U.S. are public. And Google is trying to make it feel that way.

The company that conquered the web and coined the phrase “Don’t Be Evil” announced yesterday in a blog post that it was adding full-text decisions from federal and state legal courts to Google Scholar.

This announcement means the free web becomes a richer source not only for education and research, but also for those of us trying to overturn injustice through the court system.

The law is still a paper profession. It’s changing, but slowly. Google’s move only covers opinions filed by courts; those are currently among the easier documents to find. For real reform, we need a sea change in the way the law looks at data. We need to bring the digital revolution to the courtroom and the police station. During the Presidential campaign last year, Barack Obama talked about a Google for Government. He’s right. We need to Google-ize our courts.

The impact of this announcement from Google will be limited, but it’s a step toward a more open system, and it should come as a wake-up call for courts, police departments, public defense offices and prison systems that open data on the web is coming, whether they like it or not. The motivations are different. Google is trying to make money with ads. But ad-supported court documents serve the public much better than documents behind the expensive paywalls of Westlaw and Lexis-Nexus.

The real reform must come from within the system. We need electronic, online filing and searchable databases of court records (from pre-trial hearings to appellate filings) and police reports.

Every day we wait for an open system like this, we let injustice have the upper hand. If defendants, lawyers, investigators, reporters and the public have access to court documents, hidden injustices will see the light of day and professionals and the public will work to help cops and prosecutors solve cases.

There’s collective interest from various perspectives in solving crimes -- from victims to reporters to the wrongfully accused -- and opening the doors on the mountains of data collected by our court system will enable this volunteer army to collaborate on improvements to the court system that benefit us all.

And Google is not the only player in this new media age. Exciting open government efforts are popping up all over the place, from the work of the Sunlight Foundation to provide access to Congress to the startup Document Cloud.

Some counties and courts are taking the lead on digitizing documents and opening the archives online, but I don’t know of broad efforts -- whether state, nonprofit or for-profit -- to offer training, technology and server space to help courts and police departments. Other efforts are focused on freedom of information filings, to fill the void left by shrinking legacy media. But FOIA requests are asking for individual needles when what we need is a searchable haystack. Here are a couple of thoughts on where we can start:

All trial transcripts and appellate filings in criminal cases should be posted online and made available for free. They are public documents and server space is cheap enough that a few million dollars a year from the government could put every transcript within reach.

States should pass laws requiring law enforcement agencies to post police reports online. Victim names, of course, could be redacted. These are public documents and forcing police to post them online would hold agencies accountable.

By putting these tools at the hands of reporters, watchdogs, crime victims and families working to overturn injustice, we will build a stronger system.

Photo by mcfarlandmo

The DEA Quietly Updates its Website, and Drug Reformers Score a Victory

Matt Kelley — 2009-11-17T19:31:00-08:00

It's been a week since the American Medical Association reversed its long-held and counterproductive position on medicinal marijuana, but the DEA still included the AMA's hard line on its website until this evening.

The advocacy group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition -- and online activists -- didn't allow the misinformation to last. The group called on members to email the Department of Justice, and now the bullet point is gone.

While I think the problem was more likely an oversight than an attempt on the part of a government agency to lie to its citizens, LEAP should be congratulated for seeing the error and getting it fixed. The government is aware that advocates for sensible drug policies are watching closely and won't stand for misinformation. It does feel like the tables have been turned, and this victory is a sign of more to come. Kudos to LEAP for mobilizing quickly and bringing about this change.

And while we’re looking at that hideous DEA site, maybe we should urge the Justice Department to get around to redesigning the DEA website to look all Baracky like the main DOJ site.

LEAP is also right to focus attention on the AMA decision, because it could be a tipping point on medicinal marijuana -- and another nail in the coffin of prohibition.

The AMA move is exciting because it could move us closer to reclassifying pot as something other than a Schedule 1 controlled substance. This would open the door to more marijuana research. Maybe researchers seeking to conduct studies of marijuana's effects could get it from more than one source.

Reclassification is a step on the path to legalization, and the AMA was a roadblock. New studies will now show what many already know: the drug is virtually harmless for moderate, responsible users (especially when vaporized). Things are changing, and it's good to see online activists ready to keep pressure on the government to reconsider decades of failed drug policy.

Photo via r0bz

A Jail Journal

Matt Kelley — 2009-11-17T05:19:00-08:00

A Michigan man who spent five months in the Washtenaw County Jail in 2008 has been posting about his experiences in installments on the Ann Arbor Chronicle site. It's a moving and detailed account of life on the inside, and well worth a look.

The journal started as a twitter feed, doling out jail experience 140 characters at a time. It grew into well-written chapters, covering day-to-day life in a local jail -- the challenges, the characters, the slang, the work-arounds, the danger.

Here's an excerpt:

The holding cell is so crowded now, there is no room for anybody to lay down. Some inmates tuck their arms into their uniforms and curl up.

I’ve been in a holding cell for about three hours, added to 56 hours in “suicide watch.” Now, I’m waiting for a vacancy in the overcrowded jail.

At last my name is called. After spending 60 hours in three holding cells a few feet away from the entrance, I am now going to see the jail. As I pass by Bam Bam, Frank smiles and gives me a thumbs-up. It’s an ending, of sorts. Phase I of jail ends.

But it’s all really beginning.

Read his first three chapters at the Ann Arbor Chronicle.

We've been seeing more blogging by prisoners these days, yet another way the opening of media channels will impact the criminal justice system. By putting the keys to publishing in everyone's hands, we get prisoners writing home and family members posting their thoughts. In hearing uncut words from inside our prisons and jails, we move closer to understanding life behind bars, the conditions we force prisoners to endure, and to confront the humanity and intelligence of our fellow Americans locked in cages.

Here are a few prison bloggers I've been reading:

Michael Santos has written several posts here at change.org from inside federal prison and he continues posting at PrisonNewsBlog. A California prisoners is blogging on SFBG under the name Just A Guy. A teenager in Florida prison writes a personal journal here.

If you're reading other prisoner blogs, please post 'em in the comments.

H/T Gideon

Image via 888bailbond

The Job Search and the Stigma of a Felony

Matt Kelley — 2009-11-16T20:17:00-08:00

The latest episode of a great of web radio show, Family Life Behind Bars, focuses on the job search after incarceration, and includes two guests who offer important perspectives on the topic.

David Koch -- a pilot, business owner and author -- served two years in prison before beginning his career in 1980 at the bottom rung, mowing lawns and cleaning floors at a flight school. He offers some clear and actionable advice to newly released prisoners, but he doesn't mince words -- he's such a believer in self-determination that he almost denies the challenges are there. He says that the stigma of a felony conviction exists in the felon’s mind more than it does in society. He recommends that newly released prisoners take "jobs that nobody wants" or volunteer their time to help others and get their foot in the door. I'm not sure if he's offering sound advice or living in a fantasy land.

From the other end of the spectrum, guest Aric Coleman was freed last month in Michigan after serving seven years in prison. He’s struggling to find a job, and he says he sees the stigma against hiring felons as real in society, but then agrees with Koch that it must first be conquered within oneself.

Listen to the podcast here.

I sometimes write in this space about nonprofits and socially conscious companies that open doors for the formerly incarcerated. These are critical pieces of the puzzle, of course. But this podcast discussion focuses on the individual, and it raises some important questions.

I haven’t faced the stigma of a felony so I don’t have the insight of these two guests, but it has always seemed to me that the stigma is very real. It’s inspiring to hear these two men describe the personal journey of overcoming the challenges facing them, but it certainly takes enlightened hiring practices to help people like them achieve their goals. I'm not sure we're there yet.

In the end, I disagree with Koch. We live in a society (especially in this economy) where the enormous prison system is vilified and misunderstood. Thanks to the drug war, more people than ever before have a record, but companies refuse to hire them. In the current atmosphere, many talented, driven former prisoners just won't get the break they need to achieve their potential. That needs to change to make Koch's world a reality.

Denied a Promotion Because She’s a Woman

Matt Kelley — 2009-11-16T06:50:00-08:00

Andrea Young was a 13-year veteran of the Pennsylvania State Police when she sat for the state’s promotion exam. She scored sixth out of 2,000 test-takers. But she was skipped for the promotion, and she argues in a new lawsuit that the snub was just one facet of the consistent harassment she suffered as a female officer on the force.

Just 4% of state cops in Pennsylvania are women, and Young said she endured jokes about her sex life and even received a photo of one officer’s penis. Other officers admitted to her they were cheating on the test, but then accused her of cheating. She says she wasn’t only targeted because she’s a woman, but because she was a speaking up about the conditions under which she worked.

Another suit against the Pennsylvania agency alleges that an illegal background check was run on a civilian by a jealous ex-boyfriend in the agency. An attorney for the civilian plaintiff, Jerry Grossnickle, told the Philadelphia Daily News: “There’s a buddy system that pervades the state police, a system in which criminal laws are broken to protect the clique."

This culture isn’t unique to the Pennsylvania State Police -- it's pervasive throughout law enforcement. Gender discrimination needs to be addressed head-on before our law enforcement agencies can even begin to talk about equality. Aggressive hiring should aim to balance the gender gap -- a force with 4% women in 2009 is simply unacceptable. Female officers deserve to work in a welcoming and safe environment, and we can’t trust a boys’ club that harasses female officers to treat female crime victims or defendants with respect.

Via PoliceOne and the Philadelphia Daily News

Photo by Dtbohrer

Ohio Executions: Straight, No Chaser

Chris Cassidy — 2009-11-15T06:11:00-08:00

High-profile failures to humanely administer the lethal, three-drug cocktail used by 35 other states have prompted Ohio to abandon that method in favor of single-drug lethal injections.

The announcement by the director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction endorsed the injection of a "massive dose of anesthetic," reports The New York Times. This method -- preferred for veterinary euthanasia -- has long been pushed by critics of the more popular three-drug cocktail which paralyzes inmates and is intended to also render them unconscious. Paralysis is especially problematic, critics say, as it eliminates inmates' potential to express extreme discomfort with failed or particularly painful executions.

Despite some celebrations of the move, it only represents an effort to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic that is Ohio's death row. Ohio's recent displays of executioners' incompetence were not merely demonstrative of the need for a new approach to executions. Ohio's botched attempt to execute Rommel Broom are illustrative of capital punishment's shortcomings generally.

In the most charitable light, capital punishment remains an anachronistic punitive policy that puts our developed democracy on lists with China, Iran and other dictatorships few would uphold as models of enlightened governance. More frankly, our country's penchant for reciprocating extraordinary violence might be described as a barbarian abomination that should shame any proud patriot.

Were that not argument enough for abolition, executing prisoners has proven to cost considerably more for states struggling to balance budgets. Incarcerating the worst, most irredeemable criminals for life without any chance of parole would save taxpayers $90,000 per case. So, Ohio's efforts to preserve capital punishment prove Buckeye pols' penchant for persisting in a fiscally irresponsible approach. Short-term costs will also result, as the change in methods itself faces certain challenges at no small cost to taxpayers.

Like a chronic alcoholic who traders in Miller Genuine Draft for Miller Lite, Ohio's new approach to executing criminals fails to even acknowledge the costly and tragic elephant in the room.

Photo via Zaldylmg

"The Wind is at Our Back"

Matt Kelley — 2009-11-14T05:36:00-08:00

This weekend, the Drug Policy Alliance is hosting its annual Reform Conference in Albuquerque, and DPA Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann opened the event Thursday with a passionate speech about the momentum that drug reform feels in D.C. and across the country.

"The wind is at our back," Nadelmann said. "And we are making progress like we've never seen before." He called on the movement to continue working to create a political landscape that will allow Congress and the President to move toward harm reduction and legalization policies. The change won't come from the top until we lay the groundwork, he said. His passion and optimism is infectious and it's a speech worth watching.

Watch Nadelmann's full speech after the jump.

A few other important stories going on in the marijuana legalization and medicinal marijuana movements this week:

The American Medical Association reversed a decade of bad policy, urging the federal government to reclassify marijuana as a medical substance to allow clinical studies.

Breckenridge, Colorado, is adjusting to its new decriminalization policy.

As Nadelmann points out, a ten-point gender gap in support of marijuana legalization disappeared in the last four years.

Nadelmann's speech is below. To follow along with the important conversations going on Albuquerque, watch the twitter hashtag #reformconf

Torture and Intimidation in China's Secret "Black Jails"

Matt Kelley — 2009-11-13T08:03:00-08:00

A new report from Human Rights Watch documents torture and illegal detentions in China's "black jails" -- prisons hidden in state-owned hotels and nursing homes used to silence critics of the state.

Chinese officials deny the existence of black jails, but Human Rights Watch spoke with 38 former detainees whose horror stories or beatings, sexual assault and psychological torture weren't fabricated.

The jails are used primarily to detain people who travel to Beijing and provincial capitals to lodge legal complaints that have not been resolved at the local level. To avoid reprimand, local officials pay the black jails to detain and silence these petitioners. It's a system that doesn't only torture Chinese citizens but also intimidates people to stop them from filing legal appeals to uphold their rights.

The jails have expanded a great deal since 2003, when Chinese officials banned an above-ground process of detaining "undesirables" -- which often included legal petitioners from rural areas. The HRW report recommends that China first admit that black jails exist and then take steps to protect the rights and safety of citizens who use the legal process to uphold and protect their rights.

Read the summary -- and download the full report -- here.

Via Pete Brook.

Another Reluctant Prison Plan from the Governator

Matt Kelley — 2009-11-13T06:10:00-08:00

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger handed over another version of his court-ordered plan last night to address prison crowding in the state. The state is starting a budge a bit, but Arnold won’t let sweeping reform happen without a fight.

Schwarzenegger’s second try at the plan admits that the federal court has the power to order the changes without a vote from the legislature, and lawyers for the plaintiffs in the class action suit said the new offering from the state is at least “in the ballpark.”

The state’s first offering was rejected and a three-judge panel threatened Arnold with contempt for offering a half-hatched plan. At least he didn’t code an f-bomb through the first letter of each line, as he’s been known to do.

The federal court ruled in February in a long and ongoing civil case that California must reduce prison crowding to address human rights violations. The state is being sued by thousands of prisoners who say the state’s inferior prison health care is unconstitutional and deadly, contributing to one unnecessary death a month. The Supreme Court said in September it wouldn’t hear the case now, but will review any federally mandated plan before it is implemented.

California’s new plan proposes releasing elderly prisoners earlier, shortening sentences for crimes like drug possession and receiving stolen property. It also unfortunately includes plans to send 5,000 more prisoners to private facilities and the build new prisons for 2,400. One lawmaker said building prisons doesn’t solve the problem.

"I think that doesn't deal with the problem," state State Sen. Mark Leno. "The overcrowding is a symptom. Building new beds doesn't address the problem that caused the symptom." He said the state should change its sentencing guidelines, a proposal that is not in the administration's plan.

California was a leader on the race to the sprawling, crowded prison systems. Now the broke state should lead on sensible policies that reduce prison populations and focus on public safety rather than unnecessary punishment.

Photo by JoseFren

An Ad Campaign Gone Wrong

Matt Kelley — 2009-11-12T16:33:00-08:00

A marketing campaign by outdoor gear retailer Moosejaw is drawing sharp criticism from criminal justice reform advocates -- and for good reason.

The backlash is focused on the store's new ad campaign, which includes pictures of models wearing fleece jackets in prison, and includes an absurd and offensive "Jail Activity Book," including joke games like a "don't get shanked in the shower maze."

The new catalog wonders why so few Moosejaw customers have done time, and jokes that this is "unacceptable." It offers joke greeting cards "in an effort to assist human people doing time in the joint" saying things like "You've been here 25 years, Happy Anniversary." It has a joke "letters to the warden" section.

The campaign makes a joke of a serious problem in this country -- and, to me at least, the punchline isn't exactly clear. It's a lame ad campaign that offends without really making any point (or having any connection to hiking and camping gear). I like funny advertising. I usually like South-Park-style offensive humor, if it has a point. This pointless campaign isn't funny, and it perpetuates the stereotypes that set back prison reform.

I asked the company to respond to criticism before I posted on the issue, and I have to say I'm not entirely satisfied with the answer.

Moosejaw CEO Harvey Kanter wrote me an email today saying: "The idea behind this particular campaign was to parody the glamorization of crime and prison by pushing it to its completely illogical conclusion."

Kanter wrote that after receiving a negative email the company looked at the campaign "through this new lens," and they agree that aspects of the campaign "could be taken as offensive." Although the catalog is in the mail, the company has "already pulled a few elements that may have pushed it a little too far and really didn't fit with the pure idiocy that is typical of Moosejaw."

Hey, at least the idiocy isn't in dispute. But the company really screwed this one up -- they seem to have forgotten that they were talking about 2.2 million real (and mostly poor) people (in the U.S. alone) and their families and their communities. Moosejaw needs to go further in its admission of a mistake. The company should pull the ads and unmailed catalogs and issue a public apology for running this offensive campaign that perpetuates the dangerous stereotypes that keep our prisons overcrowded and keep ex-prisoners from getting services and jobs.

I wrote to Kanter this evening urging him to acknowledge the mistake and apologize for the campaign. I also created an action here on change.org so you can write to him as well -- if you agree with me, please write to Kanter here.

I know there are people out there who agree with me and others who don't. A conversation about the ad popped up this week on Moosejaw's Facebook fan page, with several activists calling the company out for its insensitive and pointless campaign. The retailer's faithful customers responded, calling concerned commenters 'PC police' and 'uptight liberals.' Some of the sentiments expressed on the Facebook page explain exactly the kind of stereotypes we fight against in criminal justice reform.

Moosejaw is making a play with its irreverent ads to become a leading online retailing for outdoors gear. I buy outdoors gear. I like irreverent ads. But when those ads make jokes of prison rape and basic human rights, count me out. I'll be shopping at REI unless Moosejaw takes swift, serious action to combat the sterotypes they're spreading.

With 140,000 Veterans in Prison, We Can Do Better

Matt Kelley — 2009-11-11T10:50:00-08:00

This Veterans' Day is a chance to honor the hundreds of thousands of military veterans among us, including those serving today at home and overseas.

It should also serve as a day to remember the 140,000 veterans in American state and federal prisons. Many of them served our country at wartime, and many shouldn't be behind bars.

A new report from the Drug Policy Alliance makes a strong case for an expansion of veteran services in this country, recommending that we focus more on treatment and services for those suffering from afflictions like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury and urging an expansion of substance abuse treatment for people who have served in the military.

There's a high rate of substance abuse among veterans, and another connection between substance abuse and prison, unfortunately this connection is all too strong thanks to our war on drugs. We need alternative solutions to avoid locking up the men and women who serve our country.

The causes that contribute to our high rate of veteran incarceration are similar to those that have left so many veterans homeless. As Mark Horvath writes eloquently on the End Homelessness blog today:

These are men and women who were willing to wear the uniform, willing to put themselves in harm's way. It must be tough to come to the realization that their country - the people and ideals that they fought for - are not half as eager to heal their pain, to have their backs. Seems there is just too much hurt and not enough money.

The statistics in the DPA report make it clear that something is missing in our veteran services. More than 40 percent of veterans in federal prison (and 15 percent of those in state prisons) are there for drug violations. More than 60 percent of veterans in prison can be classified as having a substance abuse problem. A quarter of veterans in prison were intoxicated at the time of their arrest.

There are obvious and immediate gaps to address. One of the most prominent is that most veterans don't qualify for substance abuse treatment benefits through the VA unless they have PTSD. Substance abuse treatment should be available to all veterans, without barriers, hurdles or paperwork. It's much better to treat an addiction than to lock someone up or put them in prison.

I wrote recently about veterans' courts being used in New York, Illinois and Nevada. These courts can treat veterans with the respect and attention they deserve, helping defendants navigate the complicated bureaucracy between the VA, police, court, treatment and prison. The initiative has drawn some fire from veterans and civil liberties advocates, saying these courts can unfairly single out veterans. I think they're an appropriate response, and any time our courts can specialize and slow down the conveyor belt, we're doing defendants a service.

Take a look at the DPA report and please remember today that all veterans deserve our respect and support, even those that find themselves behind bars.

Photo via NYCMarines

Hire a Lawyer, Avoid the Death Penalty

Matt Kelley — 2009-11-10T15:56:00-08:00

If you hire a lawyer, the chances are you won't be sentenced to death in Houston.

University of Denver Criminologist Scott Phillips reviewed 504 capital indictments over three decades in Harris County, Texas, and found that defendants who hired lawyers for the entire trial were never sentenced to death -- and were more likely to be acquitted.

The results of his study, published over the summer in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, are truly stunning. Since nearly all defendants facing the death penalty in Harris County were poor, Phillips argues that his results further demonstrate the arbitrariness of capital punishment. If a defendant's family and community is able to pool resources to hire an attorney, the paid attorney might be better equipped to investigate a case or to bring bargaining power to the table against a district attorney.

He makes clear that his findings aren't an indictment of appointed attorneys, but of the system that straddles those attorneys with thin resources in a death penalty case. Something clearly went wrong for results this drastic.

Phillips also came up with some significant findings on race and capital punishment, which he published in the American Constitution Society's journal, Advance.

Phillips found that the race of a defendant played a significant role in whether he or she was charged with death. This is no surprise to people following capital punishment issues, of course, but Phillips makes some interesting recommendations for prosecutors' offices to avoid this disparity. He praises the Harris DA's office for eliminating the race of a defendant from the memo used to determine whether to seek the death penalty. Other markers, however, still indicate race and play a role in the decision, he says.

Phillips suggests that prosecutors' offices go further than just removing race -- they need to "be vigilant" and remove victim informaiton, neighborhoods, school names and other possible identifiers. This is a commendable -- but unrealistic -- idea.

Phillips' research is important, but I believe it further proves that the death penalty is cruel and unusual. I don't think it's possible to remove the arbitrariness of race, socioeconomic background or myriad other factors that lead the most vulnerable to our death row. Abolishing capital punishment is the only way to address the inherent injustice in the system.

Via ACSblog and Dallas Morning News Crime Blog.

Photo via bmxchuck

Take Action: Texas Prisons Ban Book on Women's Incarceration

Pete Brook — 2009-11-10T09:33:00-08:00

A prison advocacy group is suing the Texas prison system over prisoners’ rights to order two books on prison conditions and the American criminal justice system.

Texas officials have blocked prisoner access to two books: Women Behind Bars: The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by journalist Silja J.A. Talvi and Perpetual Prisoner Machine: How America Profits from Crime by Joel Dyer. Prison Legal News, the distributor of the books, filed a federal lawsuit against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice last week, arguing that the state has denied prisoners their constitutional rights.

But the state says it isn’t banning the books because they’re critical of the system – officials claim they blocked the books because they’re too graphic. In fact, descriptions of sexual assault in the two books are critical to tell the story of a prisoner’s life and to address prison conditions. Neither are remotely gratuitous.

Send a letter to Texas Department of Criminal Justice Director Brad Livingston today, urging him to change the department policy on these two important books.

In Demember 2008, PLN received an order for Women Behind Bars from a prisoner at the TDCJ’s Hilltop Unit. The mailroom at the Hilltop Unit refused to deliver the book. In March 2009, Perpetual Prisoner Machine was censored at the TDCJ’s Allred Unit in Iowa Park, Texas. Two copies of Women Behind Bars were also refused delivery at TDCJ’s Garza East Unit in September 2009.

Women Behind Bars was deemed “detrimental to offenders’ rehabilitation, because it would encourage homosexual or deviant criminal behavior.” The notification suggested the book was censored by the mailroom because page 38 depicted “sex with a minor”.

The passage on page 38 in fact describes an act of abuse an Oklahoma prisoner suffered as a child:

The dark secret of her life was that she had been forced to perform fellatio on her uncle when she was just four years old. … This unresolved trauma became “the template for a lifetime of distrust, fear uncertainty and a spirit of self-negation.”

Firstly, this passage – which is necessary to tell the victim’s story – is in no way graphic. To the contrary, it puts into context the destructive capacity of abuse. Secondly, to determine that this would in any way encourage homosexual behavior is offensive and reckless.

TDCJ “disapproved” of Perpetual Prisoner Machine because page 45 discusses “rape”. Page 45, in fact, quotes from a 1968 Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office investigation into sexual assault in prison, and describes crimes committed against prisoners.

The state never provided Prison Legal News with information on how to contest the censorship. PLN believes it likely the TDCJ will continue to censor the books it distributes. The suit states that the “TDCJs censorship regime, as authorized and supervised by Livingston, is arbitrary, serves no legitimate penological purpose as applied to PLN’ publication, and violates the constitutional rights of publishers like PLN,” and, “TDCJs written policies do not permit censoring publications like Women Behind Bars and Perpetual Prisoner Machine for the reasons identified by Defendants.”

Please take action today -- send a letter to the TDCJ Director about this issue.

Download the full PLN lawsuit here.

The Supreme Court and Why Age Matters

Matt Kelley — 2009-11-09T16:41:00-08:00

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.

But there must be some age at which LWOP is cruel and unusual, right? The judges pondered whether age should be a factor for judges once a defendant is in federal court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wondered if any age limit should exist for LWOP, whether it's five, ten, 13, 14 or 15 years old. Scott Makar, arguing on behalf of Florida, agreed that age does matter, but also admitted that theoretically a Florida judge can sentence a five-year-old to life.

Two thinkers on this issue squared off today in an enlightening three-part debate on the New York Times website. Marc Mauer, the Sentencing Project Executive Director and a sensible voice on this issue, pointed to justice Anthony Kennedy's enigmatic questions today. Kennedy asked about the value of JLWOP to the state when research fails to show any deterrent effect of longer sentences. But he didn't ask about the "unusual" nature of the punishment, from a global perspective. The U.S. has somewhere between 1,200 and 2,200 people serving life for juvenile convictions. The rest of the world has 12. Twelve. If that doesn't make us unusual, what does?

This is something I've written about before, as I think it's one of the strongest arguments for a bright line rule outlawing JLWOP. As Mauer points out, Kennedy himself referred to our unique place in the world and the "evolving standards of decency" in the court's 2005 decision outlawing the juvenile death penalty in Roper v. Simmons. It may be a bad sign that he didn't refer to the international precedent today.

Squaring off against Mauer was Kent Scheidegger of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. Scheidegger predicted an anticlimactic decision, with the justices ruling that judges should simply take age into consideration when sentencing people convicted in adult courts as juveniles.

A compromise like this does seem likely, and while it would be a step in the right direction, it would leave a punishment on the books that is uniquely American in its cruelty and its ineffectiveness.

Some more background and coverage of the cases:

Transcript of today's arguments in Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida

Associated Press: High Court Looks at Life Sentences for Juveniles

New York Times debate: Young Offenders Locked Up for Life

The amazing Paul Farmer, writing in the Boston Globe: A Second Chance at Freedom for Juvenile Offenders

On Needle Exchanges, Another 1,000-Foot Mistake

Matt Kelley — 2009-11-09T07:22:00-08:00

I wish this post brought better news. A bill before Congress would lift the ban on federal funding for needle exchanges. Good so far, right?

Here’s the problem: the bill would actually extend the ban formost of the 200 needle exchanges in the U.S., by preventing them from drawing federal money if they are within 1,000 feet of a school, library, park, college, video arcade or any other place children might gather. It’s a backhanded effort to hinder needle exchanges, and its result will be higher rates of HIV and AIDS, STDs and drug addiction.

A parallel rule will block city funding for exchanges in Washington, D.C., that fail the 1,000-foot test. The D.C. bill was introduced by U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican, who claims to be thinking of the children.

“Let’s protect these kids,” he told the Times. “They don’t need to be playing kickball in the playground and seeing people lined up for needle exchange.”

Oh, the horror. Can you imagine? How could they possibly continue with their kickball game, once their innocence has been stolen by a line of scary heroin addicts right outside the playground? Kingston's comment is straight-up fear mongering and, like other 1,000-foot rules, the bill masquerades punishment as safety.

I've yet to see a 1,000-foot rule (or a 2,500-foot rule) that I would support -- whether it be a drug sentence enhancement, a sex offender restriction or this needle exchange nonsense. These are long distances, and they make it especially hard to provide services in an urban environment. Sure, we shouldn’t have a needle exchange at a school. We shouldn’t hire convicted sex offenders as teachers. But why can’t we make these distance laws read “within sight of” instead of 1,000 feet?

What the 1,000-foot rule does is block most possible locations for a desperately needed needle exchange in an environment like Manhattan or Baltimore. Needle exchanges prevent the spread of disease, they couple harm reduction with offers of addiction treatment that might actually help people kick drug habits, they offer other crucial services like disease testing and soup kitchens. We need them, and this rule would prevent them from being effective.

These 1,000-foot rules are devastating elsewhere, too. As I’ve written before, sex offenders prohibited from living 1,000 feet from anywhere kids might congregate often end up homeless. And the shelters can’t even take them, if they also house kids or if they’re anywhere near a school.

Drug-free zone laws of similar nature manage to simply add years to the sentences of nearly anyone caught selling drugs in an inner city, because everything is 1,000 feet from a "place children congregate." No one has ever shown that a drug dealer 500 feet from a school is more likely to sell to kids than one 1,500 feet away. Yes, someone caught selling drugs to kids should be punished. But selling drugs to an adult 995 feet from a school is no cause for a Draconian sentence.

Needle exchange is similar. The New York Times today points to the Harm Reduction Center of South Oregon. The center, which offers needle exchange and anti-drug programs, is struggling to make ends meet and a lift of the federal ban on needle exchanges would be welcome. But the organization is 997 feet from a school so the ban would persist under the proposed bill.

Distance limits make for dishonest, ineffective policy, and this proposal needs to go for the needle exchange ban to truly be lifted.

Simpsons image via aazmaaish.