Adding to our last post on the new Pew study, as a transplanted Rhode Islander I was thrilled to see Pew report that Rhode Island now leads the states in prison population reduction. As Bruce’s post reminds me, we never thought we’d see the day RI had fewer than 4,000 state prisoners. The RI General Assembly has recently eliminated mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, restoring judicial discretion. The Department of Corrections has increased sentence reductions for inmates’ good behavior.
Last night, the RI Senate Committee on Marijuana Prohibition released its final report, and concluded its business by releasing its final report and voting to recommend that the legislature decriminalize marijuana. This change would result in vast savings: in 2009 RI arrested 2,546 people for first-time marijuana possession. According to re-entry institute OpenDoors’s new report, in 2008 RI imprisoned 188 people and jailed 396–who spent a collective 2,366 days in jail.
Californians are trying to tax and regulate marijuana, through such measures as the Tax Cannabis 2010 ballot initiative and Assm. Tom Ammiano’s AB 2254. Meanwhile, legislators in the Rhode Island House of Representatives have also introduced a bill to legalize marijuana; text here: http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText10/HouseText10/H7838.htm. H7838 would regulate marijuana wholesalers, retailers, and home-cultivators, and set a tax of $50/ounce like CA AB2254. Looks like there’s a race on to see who can begin reaping tax revenues, first: at least 6 states (California, Rhode Island, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Nevada) will consider taxing and regulating marijuana by the end of 2012. H7838 specifically invokes corrections/enforcement savings as a reason for regulating marijuana: “There were more than 847,000 arrests for marijuana offenses in the US in 2008, which is more than Rhode Island’s entire adult population.”
Today the Justice Policy Institute issued a press release criticizing President Obama’s budget proposal. The new budget would increase funding for law enforcement and prisons, and reduce funding for alternative justice programs. JPI has released a full fact sheet, here. The text of their release follows:
Group Criticizes Obama Administration’s Budget Plan to Increase Policing and Prisons
Justice advocates disturbed by proposed $29 billion for ineffective and unfair policies
Washington, D.C. – The Justice Policy Institute released a factsheet today challenging the Obama administration’s proposed Fiscal Year 2011 Department of Justice budget. The Administration is asking for $29.2 billion, which includes more funding for law enforcement and prisons, and reductions in spending on juvenile justice programs that have been proven to be effective at getting youth back on track for positive life outcomes. A hearing for the proposed budget was scheduled before the Congressional Budget Committee, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science on February 11, but was delayed and is in the process of being rescheduled.
“The Administration’s rationale for dumping more money into COPS (the federal Community Oriented Policing Services program) is that we need more police while the economy improves in order to prevent crime,” stated Tracy Velázquez, executive director of JPI. “That doesn’t pass the smell test. Crime rates have been falling for the last few years and we’ve already put a billion stimulus dollars into more policing last year. If the Administration wants to buy jobs that will improve public safety, they should put that $600 million into struggling communities, schools, treatment, and social services.”
Velázquez also noted that the proposed budget will likely result in increased incarceration costs for states, with only marginal public safety benefits. This is at a time when financially-strapped states are trying to downsize prisons through such mechanisms as greater use of community supervision and more diversion programs. While Velázquez praised funding for the Second Chance Act, which helps formerly-incarcerated people with their transition back to the community, she added, “More money should be focused on programs that help to keep people out of the criminal and juvenile justice systems in the first place.” These alternatives include community-based prevention and early intervention programs for youth, education and employment training, and substance abuse and mental health treatment services.
Some of the key findings in the newly-released fact sheet http://www.justicepolicy.org/content-hmID=1811&smID=1581&ssmID=87.htm include:
* Byrne Justice Assistance Grants: JPI found that while the $500+ million proposed for this program can be used for prevention and education, in reality most money goes to law enforcement. Research has shown that increased law enforcement results in the least-effective solution-higher drug imprisonment rates-while this money could be more effectively spent on community drug treatment.
* Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Funding: The Administration is requesting $600 million in hiring and retention grants for police officers, purportedly anticipating a rise in crime as the economy recovers. Such increased policing is likely to have a concentrated impact on communities of color, who are already disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system. JPI suggests this money would be better spent on creating jobs, housing, and treatment programs for increased public safety.
* Juvenile Justice Programs: Funding for essential juvenile justice programs has been declining for years, and the Administration is proposing a $133 million decrease this year. Evidence shows that youth who spend time incarcerated have decreased educational and employment opportunities. Currently, there are more than 90,000 youth imprisoned in the United States. Investments in prevention programs, by contrast, are associated with improved public safety and better life outcomes for youth. “At a time when the Administration can’t seem to find the time to hire someone to run the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,” stated Velázquez, “this lack of commitment to funding core programs that protect and help youth is discomfiting.”
* Drug Courts: JPI commends the federal government’s interest in pursuing treatment as an option for people with substance abuse problems as an alternative to incarceration. However, drug courts, and the criminal justice system generally, can’t and shouldn’t be used as a substitute for community-based treatment services through the public health system, where it is most effective and appropriate.
* Adam Walsh Act: Having failed to bully states with threats of funding cuts if they fail to comply with the Adam Walsh Act, the federal government is adding a “carrot” to the “stick”: $20 million to help states implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). A number of reports have found little correlation between the use of sex offender registries and keeping children safe. In addition, broad compliance with SORNA will increase the number of people who cannot meet their basic needs (housing, employment), which is a major risk factor for recidivism. Especially hard-hit are youth on registries that may be barred from pro-social activities that can have a positive impact on improving their lives and on public safety.
* Increased Funding for Prisons: Increased funding for prison beds will likely lead to higher prison populations and expenses without significantly improving public safety. In fact, most states are reducing prison populations due to the current economic crisis and are seeking more effective solutions.
“While I hesitate to grade the Administration,” concluded Velázquez, “we certainly were optimistic that it would use the research that groups like JPI have done over the years in developing its justice budget. We hope the Administration will more seriously engage the reform community in the budget process in the future so that budgets and policies will be prioritized to one day allow the United States – land of the free-to leave behind the shameful moniker of being the world’s largest jailor.”
The Justice Policy Institute (JPI) is a Washington, D.C.-based research and policy organization that promotes fair and rational justice policies. For more information, please visit www.justicepolicy.org
When California taxes and regulates marijuana, how will other state policies be affected? JOIN US 12p-1p Monday 2/22/10 at UC-Hastings Room A (198 McAllister St.) for a panel discussion featuring: Prof. Hadar Aviram, UC-Hastings College of the Law Prof. Alex Kreit, Thomas Jefferson School of Law Quintin Mecke, Communications Director, AB390 sponsor Assm. Tom Ammiano
The New York Times has a story today on compassionate release for inmates who are physically or cognitively unable to present a threat to society. This paragraph stands out:
“In California, where federal judges ordered the state to cut the prison population by 40,000, three people were granted compassionate release last year. In Alabama, where prisons are at double their capacity, four sick inmates were let out on compassionate release in the 2009 fiscal year; 35 other prisoners in Alabama died while their applications were being reviewed. Since New York adopted medical parole in 1992, at the height of the AIDS crisis, 364 people have been released.”
The situation may be egregious in New York, and proportionately worst in Alabama, but by sheer quantity California’s prison crisis is most dire. What values are we pursuing, what metrics are we optimizing, by paying for incapacitated inmates to die in prison rather than at home?
In case you missed Nicholas Kristof’s column in the 1/27/10 New York Times, it’s right here. Kristof relates statistics and instances of violence in prisons, especially sexual violence, especially in juvenile prisons, especially by prison guards. “I’ve never written about the horrors that unfold in American prisons — especially juvenile correctional facilities — on a far larger scale than at Guantánamo.”
Of course, it is a premise of this blog that our prisons are in a financial crisis. But as Kristof indirectly recognizes, sometimes the economic angle lets me temporarily forget the human angle. Rights that we can often take for granted in this country, including physical safety, are daily struggles frequently lost in our prisons. The real human costs of our failing correctional institutions are sickeningly deplorable, and prison reform will always be about more than money.
This is more civil justice, but so startling and intriguing I had to say something. According to the The Gadsen Times of Alabama, a state representative there has just introduced a bill that would provide a cause of action “for someone who has lost a loved one due to a drug overdose” against the dealer when “the person who sold the drug has been convicted of distribution, manufacturing an illegal drug, or other similar charge.” The proponents, parents who lost a child to an opiate drug overdose, cite deterrence as their policy motivation.
While I’m sorry for this family’s loss, this argument widely misses its target, even leading aside overarching concerns balancing free will and personal responsibility versus paternalism. As if criminal penalties, the loss of the right to liberty itself, would not deter someone who would be deterred by monetary penalties. Further, under civil asset forfeiture laws, someone already convicted of selling or manufacturing drugs is already potentially liable for basically everything they own. To return to personal responsibility, is our next step start suing alcohol producers for alcohol poisoning or drunk driving fatalities?
On January 10, the California Supreme Court ruled on People v. Kelley that legislature’s limitations on medical marijuana possession and cultivation are unconstitutional, except for as to their defensive purposes.
In November of 1996 California voters passed Proposition 215 (“the CUA”) which provided official legal protection for the medical use of marijuana in California.The CUA decriminalized the cultivation, possession and use of marijuana by “seriously ill” patients with a doctor’s recommendation and also allows the cultivation and possession by a patient’s caregiver. Its stated purpose was to ensure that “seriously ill Californians had the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes” when appropriate and recommended by a doctor, and to ensure that patients, their caregivers, and doctors “are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction”. While the CUA was a landmark step, it is an unclear, principal driven statute, which caused a list of difficulties: one was that it established no way for medical marijuana patients to verify their legal status—patients were arrested because police officers were not required to trust that patient’s recommendations were valid.
Due to various problems with the CUA, Senate passed The Medical Marijuana Program Act (“the MMPA”) effective since January 1, 2004, which supplemented the CUA without supplanting it. Among other things, the MMPA set base guidelines for maximum medical marijuana possession. As base limits, they established the minimum quantities a county can set as possession limits; a county was free to set limits exceeding these. Illustrative are Humboldt County’s guidelines, which include an outdoor growth provision that one may not have more than 99 plants which must be contained in less than 100 square feet.
In Oral Argument for People v. Kelley, the Attorney General’s office conceded that the limits set by the MMPA are unconstitutional to limit a medical marijuana patient’s possession of marijuana as guaranteed under the CUA, and as to burdens placed on a patient’s legal defense as provided by the CUA. The Attorney General’s office asserted that instead that the limits should be upheld as guidelines for law enforcement to establish in an arrest situation that marijuana possessed by a patient is truly for medical purpose. The Supreme Court’s decision on People v. Kelley is in line with the Attorney General’s concession.
My understanding is that the court decided that the specific provision of the MMPA (section 11362.77) regarding possession limits could remain, but that it could only be used for defensive purposes by patients, because the limitations would otherwise contravene the intent behind the CUA. Basically, a patient or caregiver can use the fact that they possessed marijuana in accordance with the limits to prevent arrest or to show that their possession was “reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs,” which is all that is required under the CUA (People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1549).However, patients or caregiver need not be within the limits to assert that their possession was reasonably for medical purposes.
Reuters has a fascinating article here on drug courts, empathy, and the monetization of humanitarianism. The author discusses shifting economic priorities in the war on drugs.
Contextually, it begins with Judge Gorsalitz’s drug court in Kalamazoo, MI. The writer’s title, “America’s new touchy-feely war on drugs,” and tone suggest amusement or even contempt for the drug-court approach, but then the litany of drug war harms and legalization benefits belies a different understanding.
The piece favors Judge Aim’s Project Hope in Hawaii, which saves money by making drug treatment voluntary not mandatory, and uses penalties of short jail stays instead of reinstating full sentences. Of course, here in the City&County of SF we have Judge Albers’s Community Justice Center — for its drug court context see Prof. Aviram’s post here.
