This evening we will be screening Black Alcatraz, a documentary about the African American experience at Alcatraz in the era of segregation. Director Kevin Epps (“Straight Outta Hunters Point”) will join us for Q&A and dinner will be served.
I’m at the Students for Sensible Drug Policy West Coast Regional Conference (at SF State — see http://ssdp.org/conference/westcoast) where Senator Mark Leno is currently answering a question about Proposition 19. This initiative would reduce California’s prison population by allowing adult possession and cultivation of 25 square feet of cannabis.
Senator Leno reminds us that California has the USA’s highest recidivism rate, 70%, compared to the national average of 35%. California’s prisons confine 170,000 inmates, 180% of their capacity of 90,000. Wow!
WOW! Great statistics and charts and graphs in this new publication about the school-to-prison pipeline keeping people in poverty. Check out the summary at http://www.slate.com/id/2270328/?from=rss of the report by Western & Pettit at http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/DAED_a_00019. Here are some stand-out quotes:
“[I]f current incarceration trends hold, fully 68 percent of African-American male high school dropouts born from 1975 to 1979 (at the start of the upward trend in incarceration rates) will spend time living in prison at some point in their lives, as the chart below shows.”
“After being out of prison for 20 years, less than one-quarter of ex-cons who haven’t finished high school were able to rise above the bottom 20 percent of income earners, a far lower percentage than for high-school dropouts who don’t go to prison.”
“University of California at Berkeley professor of law Jonathan Simon writes that these men and women in many ways become the human equivalent of underwater homes bought with subprime mortgages—they are “toxic persons” in the way those homes have been defined as “toxic assets,” condemned to failure.”
This Friday 10/15 at noon in room A,Allen Hopper, Legal Director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project, will address constitutional and other legal concerns raised by the text and context of Proposition 19, the November 2010 CA ballot question on taxing and regulating marijuana. Mr. Hopper will discuss the potential legal and practical interactions of Proposition 19 with federal law, including the Controlled Substances Act. Mr. Hopper will also discuss how Proposition 19 may affect the CA state medical marijuana regime, as well as its effects on CA employment law and employer policies.
The two candidates for Attorney General, a position which would provide its holder with plenty of influence over criminal justice policy in general and incarceration rates in California in particular, are Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris. The Chron summarized the candidates’ exchange in a televised debate. Unsurprisingly, the media has portrayed Cooley’s traditional “tough on crime” approach as clashing with Harris’ “smart on crime” innovations.
Lest the death penalty issue, which is a bone of contention between the candidates, throw you off, Harris is a tough law enforcer, far from being soft on crime. Moreover, while her overall approach to criminal justice emphasizes evidence-based measures and tackling roots rather than symptoms, there have been some gaffes. This year, for example, we’ve seen Harris endorse some measures that we found questionable, such as the (unenforceable) prohibition for sex offenders to join social networking websites and the truancy courts. While the latter measure tackles a phenomenon closely associated with crime rates, there is little evidence that scolding parents in court will do the trick. Nevertheless, Harris has proven to be a thoughtful, impartial, collaborative policymaker, who among other things endorses San Francisco’s Clean Slate program–a rare collaboration between the Sheriff’s department, the DA’s office and the PD’s office.
Cooley’s criminal justice policy does appear to be more traditional, but the L.A. District Attorney’s office has some community collaboration programs (including one for monitoring truancy!). It also devotes energy to combating gang activity. His campaign seems to include, so far, some of the familiar symbolic tactics, such as using victims as symbols of fear and highlighting controversial issues such as the death penalty to his advantage.
For the readers who may not have caught this SF Chron piece, it provides some information about the crime policy of different candidates for Oakland Mayor. It makes for a fascinating read; and interestingly, not all the candidates are uniformly knee-jerk-tough-on-crime-for-the-sake-of-it.
City Councilwoman Jean Quan says the city needs to preserve its community policing efforts, bolstering neighborhood-based programs that many credit with cutting crime. She voted to keep some of those programs even at the expense of officers’ jobs.
Former state Senate leader Don Perata is willing to throw many such programs out the window if it will keep more cops on the force, a stance that has earned him the support of the police union.
And City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan points to economic development strategies that could provide jobs for residents, rather than more funding for the Police Department, as the surest way to cut crime.
In other Oakland news, it appears that Johannes Mehserle, convicted of involuntary manslaughter in relation to Oscar Grant’s shooting, is seeking a new trial. The relevance of his new evidence to the issue of his guilt seems rather tenuous, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Yesterday, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senator Mark Leno’s Senate Bill 1449, which reclassifies possession of less than one ounce of marijuana as an infraction.
Existing law provides that, except as authorized by law, every person who possesses not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100. This same penalty is imposed for the crime of possessing not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana while driving on a highway or on lands, as specified.
Existing law provides with respect to these offenses that under specified conditions (1) the court shall divert and refer the defendant for education, treatment, or rehabilitation, as specified, and (2) an arrested person who gives satisfactory evidence of identity and a written promise to appear in court shall not be subjected to booking.
This bill instead provide [sic] that any person who commits any of the above offenses is instead guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $100. This bill would eliminate the above-described provisions relating to booking and to diversion and referral for education, treatment, or rehabilitation.
A preemptive move against Prop 19? The “civil unions” of marijuana, which are “almost like legalization, but not exactly”? Unclear. It is important to keep in mind, though, that prior to this amendment of the Penal Code, marijuana possession of less than an ounce was a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, a fact that many Californians were not aware of. It is therefore unlikely that this measure will have any impact, positive or negative, on usage patterns and rates.
Yesterday, our Hastings Criminal Justice Film Club watched the excellent documentary Very Young Girls, examining teenage prostitution in New York City, and especially the vulnerability of the girls and their fragile dependence on their pimps. This morning’s Chron highlights a similar phenomenon in California.
Peter Doesburg of Upland in San Bernardino County told The Daily Breeze of Torrance Thursday that he believes his daughter was abducted by Leroy Bragg, 34, while she was in Los Angeles a few months ago.
Vice officers arrested Bragg on Tuesday after a foot chase. He pleaded not guilty Thursday to trafficking of a minor, solicitation and other crimes in the abduction of another 13-year-old girl. He was being held on $1.3 million bail.
Upland police said Thursday they don’t have evidence that Bragg kidnapped Doesburg’s daughter, but believe she was abducted by people she knew.
“These subjects are believed to be associated with a group of individuals from the Los Angeles area involved in the exploitation and prostitution of young girls,” Upland police Sgt. Greg Signorio said in a statement.
Doesburg said she was arrested last week in Los Angeles and returned home, but disappeared again because Bragg allegedly made threats toward her family if she did not return to work for him. He said she might not be aware that Bragg is in jail.
“Come home,” Doesburg said. “Everything’s OK and we will protect you. You’ve got nothing to worry about.”
She described living in apartments with other girls who have been forced to meet with men for money and were beaten if they could not meet their quotas, he said.
These cases raise a number of questions about criminalization of special populations. As is the case in many US states (though not necessarily so in all countries), prostitution itself, not just pimping, is a crime. Section 647(b) of the CA Penal Code makes it a misdemeanor to–
(b) . . . solicit[s] or . . . agree[s] to engage in or . . . engage[s] in any act of prostitution. A person agrees to engage in an act of prostitution when, with specific intent to so engage, he or she manifests an acceptance of an offer or solicitation to so engage, regardless of whether the offer or solicitation was made by a person who also possessed the specific intent to engage in prostitution. No agreement to engage in an act of prostitution shall constitute a violation of this subdivision unless some act, in addition to the agreement, is done within this state in furtherance of the commission of an act of prostitution by the person agreeing to engage in that act. As used in this subdivision, “prostitution” includes any lewd
act between persons for money or other consideration.
This means that the girls, who incidentally would be legally beneath the age of consent for all other sex, are committing a misdemeanor by engaging in commercial sex. As you can see, the Johns are committing an offense, too. Incidentally, this offense does not carry automatic registration as a sex offender, but in some cases judges might order such registration. Some lawyers offer legal advice for Johns; for the girls, such legal advice is useless because of their young age and dependence upon the pimps for their livelihood. Many of the girls are very deeply attached to the pimps, which doesn’t help. That makes them, in effect, more victims than offenders. Combine this with family lives and, frequently, drug problems, and you have a bundle of problems, which are not cured by criminalizing and prosecuting girls for the symptom.
It is a very tricky situation to legislate. In 2008, San Franciscans voted against Prop K, which called for legal prostitution in the city. While some thought it healthy to allow sex workers access to medical services and unionization, this would not solve the problem of underage sex and of exploitation. The other tricky aspect of all of this is prosecuting the pimps, often very difficult without the girls’ testimony. The Alameda County DA’s office is making efforts to shift their energy away from the girls toward the pimps and johns, including necessary changes in legislation.
Our attention to sex trafficking emerged as we learned of it as an international phenomenon. It appears, however, that it is a problematic and important issue on the domestic arena, as well. One hopes that organizations such as GEMS manage to survive in these difficult times.
Groundbreaking research shows that Native Hawaiians are more likely to be incarcerated than other racial or ethnic groups in Hawai’i
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 29, 2010
NATIVE HAWAIIANS OVER-REPRESENTED IN HAWAI’I’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Groundbreaking research shows that Native Hawaiians are more likely to be incarcerated than other racial or ethnic groups in Hawai’i
HONOLULU, HAWAI’I – The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) released a new report today, The Disparate Treatment of Native Hawaiians in the Criminal Justice System , which examines the impact of the criminal justice system on Native Hawaiians. While detailing how Native Hawaiians are disproportionately impacted at various stages of Hawai’i’s criminal justice system, the report also includes first-hand accounts of Native Hawaiian concerns with the criminal justice system and how it affects their families and their culture. Native Hawaiians are the indigenous, native people of Hawai’i. Findings from the report show that the criminal justice system incarcerates Native Hawaiians at a disproportionate rate.
“This crucial research shows the need to address the unfair treatment of Native Hawaiians in our state’s criminal justice system,” said Clyde Nâmu’o, OHA’s chief executive officer. “Native Hawaiians make up almost 40 percent of the populations in Hawai’i’s prisons and jails. We are more likely to be sent to prison, and for longer periods of time, than nearly every other racial or ethnic community in Hawai’i. OHA strongly supports a fair justice system and this study sets the course for change.”
Additional key findings in the report include:
* Of the people serving a prison term in Hawai’i, approximately 50 percent are housed in facilities on the mainland. Of this population, about 41 percent are Native Hawaiian, the most highly-represented group. While incarcerated out of state, these people are further disconnected from their communities, families and culturally appropriate services for re-entry.
* Native Hawaiians do not use drugs at drastically different rates from people of other races or ethnicities, but Native Hawaiians go to prison for drug offenses more often than people of other races or ethnicities.
* Once released from prison, Native Hawaiians experience barriers that prevent them from participating in certain jobs, obtaining a drivers license, voting, continuing education, obtaining housing and keeping a family together.
* Without a sufficient number of culturally appropriate services, Native Hawaiians are not given the best chance at achieving success upon re-entry into the community.
“In 2009 the OHA Board submitted Concurrent Resolutions to the 25th Legislature noting that a study would be helpful in determining the extent, nature and impact of perceived disparities. The Senate urged with the House of Representatives concurring in HCR27, HD1, that OHA should contract a nationally respected and objective consulting firm to conduct a study of disparate treatment of Native Hawaiians in Hawai’i’s criminal justice system. That study is now complete.” said OHA Chairperson Apoliona.
The resulting report provides a number of recommendations to reduce the unfair impact of the justice system on Native Hawaiians, including:
* Reform the criminal justice system in Hawai’i to embrace the cultural values of Native Hawaiians. Changing the justice system so it is in line with culturally significant norms and values will help preserve a historic culture and strengthen the Hawaiian community and its identity.
* Develop a targeted plan to reduce racial disparities. One immediate proposal by OHA is the establishment of a task force that will review the findings and recommendations of the report, and formulate policies and procedures to eliminate the disparate treatment of Native Hawaiians in the criminal justice system. Members of the task force will include OHA, government agencies, legislators, prosecutors, public defenders, the state attorney general, the judiciary, public safety and probation officials, the police, a former prisoner and treatment providers.
* Concentrate efforts to reduce the punitive nature of the criminal justice system and fund community-based alternatives to incarceration. Investing in alternatives to incarceration and the investment of funds into re-entry and preventative programs will aid in addressing the disproportionate impact on Native Hawaiians.
* Reduce collateral consequences associated with criminal justice involvement. The current system deprives pa’ahao of full integration into the community. Barriers to education, housing, employment and parental rights only serve to increase the likelihood of future re-imprisonment which would further destabilize families and communities.
The Disparate Treatment of Native Hawaiians in the Criminal Justice System was written at the request of the Hawai’state legislature following the approval of House Concurrent Resolution 27, and was compiled through research by the Washington, D.C.-based Justice Policy Institute (JPI), and experts at the University of Hawai’i and Georgetown University.
To read the Executive Summary and the full report of The Disparate Treatment of Native Hawaiians in the Criminal Justice System visit www.oha.org/disparatetreatment. For more information on OHA, please visit www.oha.org. If you are interested in reading additional research from the Justice Policy Institute on racial disparities and efforts to reduce the number of people affected by the criminal justice system, please visit www.justicepolicy.org.
About OHA
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) is a unique, independent state agency established through the Hawai’i State Constitution and statutes to advocate for the betterment of conditions of all Native Hawaiians, with a Board of Trustees elected by the voters of Hawai’i. OHA is guided by a vision and mission to ensure the perpetuation of the culture, to protect the entitlements of Native Hawaiians, and to build a strong and healthy Hawaiian people and nation. For more information, visit www.oha.org.
Jonathan Simon has a post up in which he criticizes the death penalty for being no more than an extended life sentence under harsh conditions with an end that makes a harsh punishment (life in prison, the sentence for Brown’s crimes in Western civilized countries) into a non-punishment.
I have this to add: The absurdity of this week’s last-minute litigation is further proof of the farce that the death penalty in the United States has come to be. If you do not believe that the death penalty should be abolished immediately on human rights grounds, you should at least agree that the farcical preoccupation with regulation minutiae and expiration dates of chemicals has completely emptied the death penalty of any possible meaning. Even those of us who still believe that the death penalty functions as some sort of a morality tale, warning people against committing serious crime (an assumption hotly debated between factions of econometric experts: see here and here), should now be able to see straight and acknowledge that its current form is a mockery of these objectives.
In his 2002 book When the State Kills, Austin Sarat discusses the transformation of the death penalty from a public display of monarchical force to a hidden, hypertechnical, bureaucratic procedure, occurring away from the public eye and offering little in the way of a public message. Some conservative commentators, such as Tom Harman, have explicitly stated that if legislators cannot reform the death penalty, in its current form it is untenable.
Of course, a possible reaction to this bureaucratization of state killings could be an outcry to minimize the possibilities of post-conviction review (and by doing so, minimize the opportunity to uncover and undo wrongful convictions) or to shoot or hang death row inmates in the town square. Some of the more disturbing anonymous comments on the internet expressed a willingness to engage in this sort of exercise. If these views are broadly shared (and they are not synonymous with abstract support for the death penalty, which, incidentally, wanes when respondents are presented with the life without parole option), then the American people are getting exactly the sort of justice they deserve.
I want to believe that American citizenry, regardless of where people stand on the death penalty, is better than this. Reflective, socially conscious citizens, whether supportive of the death penalty or not, deserve better than to have human lives on the line due to such hefty considerations as chemical expiration dates. Reflective citizens deserve to air the real issues–retribution, victim positions, acceptable state action–without being bushwhacked by evasive maneuvers on the part of the state.