A report released on Wednesday concluded that public opinion on drug offenses has started to shift, as a preference for treatment over jail time is growing, particularly for hard drug users.

The study conducted by the Pew Research Center details the results of public opinion surveys taken earlier this year, and concluded that 67 percent of Americans favor providing treatment to drug users for substances like cocaine and heroin. In contrast, only 26 percent of those surveyed favored the prosecution of drug users.

This survey reflects a notable change in public and policymakers’ opinions during the “war on drugs,” which President Nixon declared in 1971 in response to drug use in the 1960s. Decades later, U.S. incarceration rates have skyrocketed as a result of drug offenders, which make up a very large portion of the American prison population. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 52.1 percent of federal prisoners and 17.4 percent of state prisoners were convicted of drug related offenses. As federal and state governments face increasing financial pressures to save money, a trend to decrease prison sentences has started to emerge in the government as well.

Changing Opinions

The Pew Research Center’s report found that a change is occurring in the popular perception of mandatory sentencing policies for non-violent drug crimes. According to the survey, 63 percent of respondents believe that moving away from mandatory sentencing policies is a good thing, while only 47 percent held that view in 2001.

The research indicates that opposition of mandatory minimums and long prison sentences is not strictly based on financial reasons, rather public perceptions of imprisonment for drug offenses may be changing. Although the study found that most Americans see drug abuse as either a crisis or serious problem in the United States, the findings may not extend to marijuana as 69 percent of the public views it as less harmful than alcohol. Support for the legalization of marijuana has also experienced a recent boost, as now over half of Americans (54 percent) are in favor of such policies. Even more, people support the decriminalization of marijuana; 76 percent of the people surveyed, oppose jail time for possessing small amounts.

A news article that was published by Pew Research Center along with their report also noted how popular opinion of drug sentencing has changed dramatically over the past 25 years. A 1990 a survey found that 73 percent of Americans supported a mandatory death penalty for “major drug traffickers,” and nearly 60 percent thought police should be able to search known drug dealer’s houses without a warrant. The new research indicates that such attitudes may now be very different, marked by the public’s preference for treatment over prison sentences for hard drug users.

Pending Legislation

These findings come at an important time politically, as the Smart Sentencing Act (SSA) of 2014 was recently placed on the Senate’s legislative calendar. The bill, sponsored by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), calls for significant changes in the sentencing of drug related offenders. With bi-partisan support, the legislation would instruct the courts to create prison sentences without considering mandatory minimums if the defendant has no more than one prior offense. It would also amend the Controlled Substances Act and Controlled Substances Import and Export Act to reduce the minimum sentence times for several offenses.

The Smart Sentencing Act would make the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), passed in 2010, retroactive. This means that anyone sentenced for a crime prior to the passage of the FSA may appeal their sentence and have it modified to reflect changes made by the legislation. The primary intentions of the bill is to both increase fairness in sentencing while also taking the fiscal concerns surrounding imprisonment into account during the sentencing process. Attorney General Eric Holder endorsed the bill earlier this year, and urged Congress to prevent “excessive mandatory minimum sentences that are out of proportion with their alleged conduct – and serve no deterrent purpose.”

Holder has also recently testified in front of the the U.S. Sentencing Commission, an independent agency that sets federal sentencing policies, in an effort to support a plan to reduce federal sentencing policies for drug trafficking offenders. These changes would affect as much as 70 percent of the drug trafficking offenders, and would reduce the average sentence by 11 months. The commission is expected to vote on the proposal sometime this month.

The changing trends and public opinion and recently proposed legislation indicate the possibility of a rare sense of agreement between the public and U.S. policymakers. Although the Smart Sentencing Act still faces several hurdles in congress, if passed it would mark an important deviation from the “war on drugs” that has been going on for decades.

Pew Research Center: Survey

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Wikimedia]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Public Opinion Shifts on Drug Sentencing appeared first on Law Street.

The effect of crime on society is often — and justifiably so — more victim-focused than offender-focused. We tend to think of someone breaking the law as an affront to society at large. That’s why in some states criminal cases are titled “The People v. ______.” To be sure, in many ways our criminal justice system is retributive. We are meant to feel some form of solace when someone is punished for offending the morals and values of society in the form of breaking the law. But I ask, when has our justice system gone too far? When do the  consequences on the offender far outstrip the damage that person did to society?

Two words: Felony Disenfranchisement.

Felony disenfranchisement is a so-called collateral consequence — the impediments to normal life and reintegration convicted persons suffer beyond their actual sentence of incarceration or supervision — and is often seen as part-and-parcel of our criminal justice system. While some may feel having been incarcerated is enough for an individual to pay their debt to society, still many others think that when you choose to break the law, you do so with the implicit acknowledgement that because you have deviated from the norms of our culture, you must take all the bad that comes from that deviation. A cold look at the facts, particularly in the area of felons who have been released from their conditions of custody being permanently denied their fundamental right to vote, might convince some to change their minds.

The Sentencing Project estimates that about 5.8 million Americans are denied their right to vote due to laws that prohibit voting by convicted felons. As a matter of perspective, that’s like the entire population of the State of Wisconsin not being allowed to vote.

The disparate impact these laws have on minority communities is quite telling. These draconian laws lead to 1 in every 13 African Americans not being able to vote due to felony conviction. According to Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent statements on this issue at Georgetown University Law Center, 1 in 10 people in the state of Florida may no longer vote due to its laws restricting felony voting. Did I mention that 38 percent of those nearly six million Americans are Black? The Attorney General is now leading the charge to help push policy reform in this area, and for that he should be applauded. In his own words:

“These restrictions are not only unnecessary and unjust, they are also counterproductive”

I would venture to add that these laws are not only counterproductive, but oppressive. In a nation that considers voting so fundamental to the democratic process that  we have an entire amendment to the Constitution dedicated to it, one might think these laws would have been struck down by now. Alas, the Supreme Court in Richardon v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974) upheld the California law disenfranchising felons by pointing to the lesser known section 2 of the 14th amendment which states:

“But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime . . . .”

That last line, according to both the text of the Constitution and the debate history around the provision, allows states to prevent certain classes of convicted individuals from voting.

Yet more important than the historical practice of disenfranchising those convicted of a crime is the modern impact of the practice today. What does it say about a system that prides itself on the democratic process that nearly 6 million American are essentially left out in the cold? Sure, they could lobby their respective state legislatures to get these laws repealed, but they don’t have access to the most potent form of lobbying imaginable: the ability to disapprove of a legislator with one’s ballot. They must do indirectly what the rest of us can do directly.

We must ask ourselves what goals are being advanced withholding the ballot from millions of citizens. Is disenfranchisement really the deterrent to crime some hope it to be, or is it just another major impediment to the reintegration of people who should have already “paid their debt to society.”

Without a doubt, crime is crime is crime, and those who commit crime should be punished. It is not the fact of punishment but rather the nature and extent that motivates this analysis. Must we continue to isolate individuals from our society even after they have been released from confinement? When will it ever end?

Felony disenfranchisement is just one more badge on the permanent underclass our society is creating with many of its criminal laws. It’s time we move forward.

—

Dominic Jones (@DomPerinyon) is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films.

Featured image courtesy of [Rama via Wikipedia]

Click here for additional Law Street coverage on felony disenfranchisement.

Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films. Contact Dominic at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Felony Disenfranchisement: Collateral Consequences appeared first on Law Street.

Recently, Johnson & Johnson had a $2.2 billion settlement, rendering it the third highest pharmaceutical fraud settlement made with the United States government. Will this trend continue, or will Johnson & Johnson learn from their mistakes as well as those of their predecessors?

Although consultant pharmacists purported to provide “independent recommendations based on their clinical judgment, Johnson & Johnson viewed the pharmacists as an ‘extension of [J&J’s] sales force,” the Justice Department claimed. That, more or less, is what Johnson & Johnson was sued for; drug-makers are legally only allowed to promote their product for cures in the way that the FDA has approved of them.

In a class action case, Johnson & Johnson was said to have wrongfully marketed their drugs created to treat schizophrenia, Risperdal and Invega, as dementia medication for elderly patients. Furthermore, the company allegedly lied about Risperdal’s side effects and withheld information that the medication led to diabetes. Although legally settling, the company still denied the allegations. Claiming innocence, Johnson & Johnson stated, “the settlement of the civil allegations is not an admission of any liability or wrongdoing, and the company expressly denies the government’s civil allegations.” In defending their drug, they claimed Risperdal to be “safe and effective for its approved indications”, and “an important treatment option for people with serious mental illness.”

Sure, the government has cracked down on Johnson & Johnson, and now the company is paying $2.2 billion, but does that actually mean anything? Johnson & Johnson has a net worth of $65.03 billion. In preparation for this case, the company set aside money to pay their penalties, rendering the fine insignificant for a company of great wealth and success.

So, will anything change from this settlement? Michael Ullmann, Vice President and General Counsel of Johnson & Johnson reflected, “today we reached closure on complex legal matters spanning almost a decade. This resolution [which] allows us to move forward and continue to focus on delivering innovative solutions that improve and enhance the health and well-being of patients around the world.”

I speculate that the government will tighten the reigns and harshly proctor the company, as well as extend this strict scrutiny to others drug-providers. But as a result of the simple nature of medications, being that they were released to the public shortly after their creation, and the system of pharmaceutical representatives, a heavily corrupted system, long term changes or consequential changes seem extremely unlikely to occur.

Shedding light on the impact of this case, Attorney General Eric Holder said “every time pharmaceutical companies engage in this type of conduct, they corrupt medical decisions by healthcare providers, jeopardize the public health, and take money out of taxpayers’ pockets.” Pharmaceutical representation is a capitalist system that encourages sales people to push drugs onto doctors, hospitals, and nursing homes which economically resonates, and yet morally conflicts with our way of conducting business. People become less important than businesses, as finances dictate our capitalist ways. C’est la vie. Being third in the country sounds significant, but the ranking, like China’s GDP, its just an arbitrary number in this case, meaningless.

[NPR] [NYTimes] [CNN] [J&J]

—

Featured image courtesy of [DraconianRain via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post Our Everyday Drug Dealer appeared first on Law Street.