Daniel Macallair has made an outstanding argument in the LA Times for closing the Division of Juvenile Justice and its five state-run youth correctional facilities. “The system is broken everywhere you look.” Allowing counties, instead of the state, to house juvenile offenders (currently about 1,400 of them) would save the state government $322.7 million (yes, a third of a billion dollars). County probation systems already handle 99% of juvenile cases.
Portugal Decriminalized All Drugs; Drug Use Dropped
As of this week, it’s been one year since the Cato Institute published its land report “Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies,” authored by Glenn Greenwald. The report examines eight years of Portugal’s drug policy: decriminalization of possession of all substances.
Here in America, last week the Providence Journal (the news source of record for the state of Rhode Island) took a related stance. The editorial board called for, not decriminalization, but taxation and regulation of all substances. The editorial argues, “Even if legalization were to increase drug use, that risk is overshadowed by the benefits. Crime would drop in our streets as dealers lose their livelihood, and users don’t have to rob others to support their habit. Governments can regulate the drugs for purity and collect taxes on their sale.”
However, the Cato report found that Portugal’s total decriminalization actually led to declines both in drug usage rates and in HIV infection rates. People found in possession of drugs are sent to a panel of a psychologist, a social worker, and a legal adviser to consider treatment and rehabilitation options. For the short version, read the TIME Magazine summary. This usage decline suggests that the public safety and economic benefits of drug policy reform would not merely offset harms of any increase in drug use, but rather, represent independent public policy gains.
“Tough on crime” -> violence -> incarceration
According to this new report from the Urban Health Research Institute, drug prohibition and mandatory minimums lead to violence… even in Canada. This is strong evidence that some Californian attempts to deter crime actually increase crime, worsening the correctional crisis. Even if you don’t have time to read it, I recommend at least checking out their executive summary here.
New Bill introduced: Pregnant Inmates and Wards’ Conditions
Assembly Bill 1900, authored by Assemblymember Nancy Skinner, advocates for special standards of care for pregnant inmates and wards.
There has been some attention to the particular circumstances of pregnancy within bars. This 2006 NYT article exposes some of the less pleasant aspects of care: women in labor kept in shackles, given no more than Tylenol, supposedly out of concerns of escape (though there aren’t any known cases of women in labor escaping. Pregnant inmates experience particular challenges during their incarceration. High rates of drug abuse and addiction complicate medical treatment (also see here). In addition, pregnant inmates report traumatic family histories and require more assistance and support during their pregnancy. A 1997 study suggests that adequate shelter and nutritional support make a big difference in terms of birth outcomes among inmates.
The proposed bill would amend the CA Penal Code to require the usage of the least intrusive methods (consistent with public safety concerns) for restricting pregnant inmates or wards during transportation and incarceration. It also requires monitoring other conditions, such as offering nutritional support and counseling about pregnancy, birth, and childcare options. The Corrections Standards Authority would assume responsibility for the particulars and would consult with a variety of professionals before setting them. Some prohibited measures are listed in the bill (though it is not an exhaustive list): shackling the feet and hands, shackling across the body, or shackling to another inmate.
The bill comes before the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee on March 30.
On a related topic, here’s an interesting blog post from Feministing about inmates’ access to abortion.
—————–
Props to Ocean Mottley for alerting me to this.
RI Leads Nation in Reducing Incarceration
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.
Let’s Criminalize Something: The Quality of Life Edition
This week’s posts seem like an endless stream of complaints about various futile criminalization efforts. Today’s contribution has to do with the recently proposed San Francisco “sit-lie” ordinance. Proposed by Mayor Newsom after a stroll with his baby on Haight, the ordinance would forbid sitting or lying on public sidewalks within the city of San Francisco.
The public discourse about this has centered on the question of criminalization of the poor. Beyond that question, which obviously has to do with the ideological divides in the city, I would like to bring once more, with your permission, gentle reader, the question of enforceability and benefit.
As characterized by Nevius (critiquing Jeff Adachi), the proposal “would restrict sitting or lying on public sidewalks anywhere in the city between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. First-time violators would be warned to move, then could receive a citation with a $50 to $100 fine. The second violation could result in 10 days in jail or a fine of $300 to $500, and each violation after that would be subject to a $500 fine and 30 days in jail.” Since the targeted offenders would, for the most part, be unable to pay the fine, they’d be shunted to court, where the case would be closed or diverted to the Community Justice Center or to the Mental Health Court, where the same population could end up anyway, for the exact same reasons, if prosecuted for one of the following violations of the already existing San Francisco Police Code, Article 2:
120-2: Aggressive Solicitation
122: Aggressive Pursuit
124.2: Loitering
Why do we need yet another low-level municipal law for people who are easy to tangle in the law enforcement web anyway, if we really want to entangle then in it? Could this be yet *another* politically-motivated symbolic piece of useless legislation? I leave that to you, gentle reader.
Oh, and if anyone feels that this piece of legislation might be a waste of precious policymaking time, it appears you’ll have a chance to speak up today at the police commission meeting.
——-
Props to Michael Mutalipassi for digging out the police code provisions.
RI bill to tax®ulate marijuana
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.”
SB xxx 18: Prison Credits – Information from Prison Law Office
The Prison Law Office has graciously posted to its website a letter of information to inmates, updated as of Feb. 1, which summarizes the changes to prison credits. While the letter is not, of course, a substitute to consulting one’s attorney, it is a good resource to consult in order to understand the new rules. The main highlights are as follows:
- Inmates in jails and prisons will now receive more credit for every day served. The details are in the letter. There are exceptions to these new rules, which are based, among other things, on the type of offense.
- The new law applies to everyone sentenced after Jan 25, but there is still a dispute over its application to folks sentenced earlier (see our discussion of retroactivity earlier this month).
- There have been no changes to the Three Strikes Law.
- The Plata/Coleman panel’s order has not yet gone into effect.
The retroactivity question is more than a technicality, given the volume of people to which the bill would apply. We’ll stay tuned.
Justice Policy Institute Bashes Budget
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.”
To read JPI’s factsheet: The Obama Administration’s 2011 Budget: More Policing, Prisons, and Punitive Policies, CLICK HERE <http://www.justicepolicy.org/
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
Early Releases Law Under Attack
A few days ago we reported on an unusual narrow coalition between inmate advocates and victim advocates about the cuts to inmate rehabilitation programs. This weekend demonstrates the fragility of that consensus.
Per the Chron, Crime Victims United of California is suing Gov. Schwarzenegger, arguing that the statute, which includes parole reform and good credits for early releases, is unconstitutional:
The suit contends that the state Constitution prohibits the early release of prisoners because of crowding, that crime victims have a right to weigh in before an inmate is released and that the state is legally bound to provide adequate prisons. It also challenges a key portion of the law, the so-called day for day provision that awards nonviolent inmates a six-month credit reduction for every six months served. Previously, inmates who behaved themselves served as little as two-thirds of their sentence; now, nonviolent convicts can serve as little as half their sentence.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/18/BAM51C3416.DTL#ixzz0g5i6rYWj
Nina Salarno’s interview for ABC News tries to explain the apparent contradiction:
“We believe in good time credit if it’s earned and earned means participating in true rehabilitation, not just sitting there and getting it, as they call it, for breathing.”
CVUC devoted some thought to forum shopping. Placer County, according to Wikipedia, is a stronghold for Republicans. Lest you think this is accidental, this is not merely a pro-victim move. CCPOA provides financial backing for Crime Victims United; according to some sources, 95% of the group’s funding comes from CCPOA. The CCPOA website keeps close watch over victim issues in general and CVUC in particular.
Another attempt at challenging the new law occurred when Assemblyman Alberto Torrico joined a lawsuit filed by the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, attempting to interpret the new law as applying only to state prisons rather than to jails. The attempt failed; Judge Loren McMaster, though expressing dismay with the new law, applied it to inmates in both prisons and jails. A similar effort to block releases in Orange County also failed.