The Bureau of Prisons released a memo last week declaring that feminine hygiene products would be provided to inmates for free. While this will only affect female inmates who are currently incarcerated in federal prisons, it’s a notable step forward for inmates who struggle to access basic hygienic products.

While some products were previously provided to women for free, many had to be purchased through the commissary, with the inmates’ own money. For the many prisoners who are from low income families, or those who are not able to work while behind bars, it can be incredibly difficult to obtain the money needed to purchase such items. And accessing those items through a commissary is actually difficult to begin with–for many prisons there is a long wait when it comes to placing orders. According to some reports, some women are forced to provide sexual favors to guards in order to obtain the feminine hygiene products that they need.

This announcement from the Bureau of Prisons comes right after a bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) that would require feminine hygiene products to be provided for free. The bill, the Dignity for Incarcerated Women Act, would also require other humane reforms in how female inmates are treated. Some of those reforms include easier access to visitations, a ban on shackling pregnant women, and access to OBGYNs.

In an interview with Bustle, Booker said:

Most folks don’t understand that so many women are being incarcerated are coming from environments that are not stable, that they are again survivors of violence, they might come in with an addiction. So now you’re struggling to recover from an addiction, you’re going through withdrawal, you have no resources, you have no support system and you’re struggling and all of that, and now you can’t even buy soap, toothpaste, sanitary products.

But while the new move by the Bureau of Prisons is a step in the right direction, the other issues included in the bill need to be addressed as well.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bureau of Prisons to Provide Free Feminine Hygiene Products appeared first on Law Street.

Cory Booker, a Democratic senator from New Jersey, introduced a bill on Tuesday that would legalize marijuana at the federal level. Titled the Marijuana Justice Act of 2017, the legislation aims to lessen the impact of marijuana arrests and convictions, which disproportionately affect minority and low-income communities. The bill also establishes a fund to invest in community programs and institutions.

“Our country’s drug laws are badly broken and need to be fixed,” Booker said in a press release accompanying the bill’s announcement. “They don’t make our communities any safer – instead they divert critical resources from fighting violent crimes, tear families apart, unfairly impact low-income communities and communities of color, and waste billions in taxpayer dollars each year.”

While marijuana is fully legal in eight states and D.C., it is barred at the federal level, classified as a Schedule I substance, joining heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Booker’s bill would declassify marijuana, effectively legalizing it.

The legislation also would penalize states that have not legalized marijuana and have “a disproportionate arrest rate or a disproportionate incarceration rate for marijuana offenses.” Such states would not receive federal funding for constructing or staffing prisons and jails. Other funds would be withheld as well.

The Marijuana Justice Act calls for retroactive expungement, community investment pool + state incentives to change their laws. Interesting. https://t.co/aIs0WCgj2l

— Ava DuVernay (@ava) August 1, 2017

 A prominent advocate for criminal justice reform, Booker also seeks to remedy the ills brought to minority communities by the War on Drugs. The bill would retroactively expunge federal marijuana convictions, and allow prisoners’ sentences to be reviewed. Marijuana arrests make up more than half of all drug arrests. And a 2013 ACLU report showed that in 2010, a black American was four times as likely as a white American to be arrested for marijuana possession.

Booker, in a statement on his Facebook page, said his bill “is the right thing to do for public safety, and will help reduce our overflowing prison population.” The legislation would create a Community Reinvestment Fund “to establish a grant program to reinvest in communities most affected by the war on drugs.” Grants would go toward job training and reentry programs, public libraries, youth programs, and health education programs.

Erik Altieri, executive director of marijuana reform group NORML, applauded Booker’s bill. In a statement, he said: “Not only is it imperative we end our failed experiment of marijuana prohibition, we must also ensure justice for those who suffered most under these draconian policies.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cory Booker Proposes Bill to Legalize Marijuana at the Federal Level appeared first on Law Street.

There are few issues in Washington that attract as much bipartisan support as criminal justice reform. Across the yawning political divide, leaders have stressed the need to reform America’s sentencing laws, treatment options, and prison conditions. Billionaire donors–from the libertarian Koch brothers to the liberal George Soros–have opened their coffers to find solutions.

America is the world’s foremost jailer, especially when it comes to women–nearly one-third of all female prisoners on the planet can be found in a U.S. facility. Congress, governors, NGOs, and leaders in the private sector are beginning to recognize the importance of tackling the issue of female incarceration, and its debilitating effects on women, children, and families.

“Biggest Cancer”

On July 11, a group of Democratic senators–Cory Booker (NJ), Elizabeth Warren (MA), Richard Durbin (IL), and Kamala Harris (CA)–introduced the Dignity for Incarcerated Women Act, which proposes “common-sense reforms to how the federal prison system treats incarcerated women,” according to a press release.

Female incarceration is the “biggest cancer on our body politic,” Booker said this week at an event at Washington D.C.’s Newseum called, “Women Unshackled.” Discussions with formerly incarcerated women, he said, shed a light on the issues they face before, during, and after incarceration, and led him to draft a policy to address some of those problems.

The legislation seeks to end the practice of placing incarcerated women who are pregnant–three percent of female prisoners in federal prisons are pregnant upon admission–in solitary confinement. It would also ensure all feminine hygiene products are provided free of charge, ban the shackling of pregnant women (including while they are giving birth), and allow overnight visits to children whose mothers are imprisoned.

“We’ve been offered a false choice on criminal justice policy,” Harris, also speaking at the “Women Unshackled” program, said. “A choice that suggests one is either soft on crime or tough on crime, instead of asking are we smart on crime.” As it pertains to incarcerated women in particular, she said, “we need to be smarter.”

Harris’ reform efforts continued on Thursday, when she and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a bail reform bill, the Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act. In an op-ed published in the New York Times on Thursday, the two senators wrote:

Whether someone stays in jail or not is far too often determined by wealth or social connections, even though just a few days behind bars can cost people their job, home, custody of their children — or their life… Our bail system is broken. And it’s time to fix it.

Their legislation, Harris and Paul wrote, “empowers states to build on best practices” and “holds states accountable.” It also encourages better data collection to “help guarantee that reforms yield better outcomes.”

Generational Effects

Women are the fastest growing segment of America’s incarcerated population, rising by over 700 percent from 1980 to 2014. As of 2014, American jails house roughly 215,000 women, the vast majority of whom are behind bars for non-violent, low-level drug offenses. According to a 2016 report by the Vera Institute of Justice, a criminal justice non-profit, nearly 80 percent of incarcerated women are mothers–65 percent have children under 18 years old.

“An incarcerated woman means that a family will be impacted,” Harris said. “And its effects can be generational; what impacts a woman, impacts a child.”

Booker framed the impacts of America’s female incarceration rates as a “stain” on the country’s founding values of freedom, justice, and dignity: “Do we take pregnant women and empower them? No, we shackle them, put them in solitary confinement,” he said. “This is a stain upon everything we say we stand for.”

Harris saw the effects of female incarceration up close as California’s attorney general, a position she held from 2011 to early 2017.

“If someone commits a serious and violent offense,” she said, “there is no question they need to be held accountable and there must be severe, swift, and certain consequence.” But the vast majority of imprisoned women have been convicted of non-violent crimes, and thousands of others are jailed, awaiting trial. Some wait years.

In addition to legislation, like the recent bill Harris co-sponsored with Booker, Warren, and Durbin, she said a number of steps can be taken to make the system more just. For one, Harris believes preventive measures should be undertaken to stem some of the “seemingly small issues now” that might lead to poor choices down the road.

Harris said education, beginning with elementary school, is vital to future success: “a child going without an education is tantamount to a crime,” she said. Harris also sees “untreated, undiagnosed, and undetected trauma” as the seed that could lead to future incarceration–eight in 10 incarcerated women have experienced abuse.

Bipartisan Issue, State-Level Solutions

Female incarceration is an issue that has gained traction from conservatives, liberals, and libertarians alike. The federal government is following the lead of states like Texas, Georgia, Utah, and Kentucky in addressing criminal justice reform. One Republican governor, Mary Fallon of Oklahoma, is paving the path forward with innovative programs and aggressive policies.

“[There are] things that can be done on the state level,” Fallon said during the “Women Unshackled” event’s keynote address. For instance, she said, states can “prioritize treatment for women who are pregnant, for women who have children, and provide those services in a targeted way to meet their very special needs.”

Under her governorship–a mantle she has held since 2011–Oklahoma, which has the highest female incarceration rate in the nation, has opened residential treatment facilities. It has implemented community-based substance abuse programs. Fallon stressed the importance of public-private partnerships in keeping women out of prison.

Fallon highlighted a program called Women in Recovery, an “intensive outpatient alternative for women facing long prison sentences for non-violent, drug-related offenses,” she said. And in a strategy that Fallon said is the first of its kind, Oklahoma “pays for success.” The state essentially provides additional funding to private programs for each patient who is successfully treated.

Fallon is far from the only Republican to recognize criminal justice reform, and female incarceration in particular, as a pressing issue. Representative Doug Collins (R-GA), also speaking at the event in D.C., presented criminal justice reform as a moral imperative for the entire country.

“If we as a country value life as much as we say we do, then we value all life, even those who have made mistakes, and have went through the incarceration system,” he said. Second chances, he said, begin by seeing jails as places to “put people in we are scared of, not those that we are mad at.”

Last year, Congress signed into law the Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act, which Collins introduced in 2016. The legislation proposed reforms for how people with mental health issues are treated, diagnosed, and sentenced, “rather than treat prisons and jails as psychiatric facilities,” Collins said in a statement when the bill was introduced.

Now, Collins is focused on finding ways “for people to have better choices,” he said at the “Women Unshackled” event. Opportunities must be found to allow people to “recover from” mistakes, he said, “and to restore families, and to restore lives, and restore hope.”

“Hope is not a partisan issue,” Collins added. “It is for those who need to know that somebody cares.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Inside the Bipartisan Effort to Reform the Incarceration of Women appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump’s Ultimatum: Approve the New Health Bill or We’ll Stick with Obamacare

Donald Trump yesterday posed an ultimatum for House Republicans–approve the new healthcare bill, or he will leave Obamacare in place as it is. The vote on the new American Health Care Act was supposed to take place yesterday but was delayed, as too many Republicans had said they would vote against the bill. In a closed-door meeting last night, Trump said he wants the House to vote on the bill this afternoon whether it has enough votes to pass or not–he’s apparently tired of negotiating. If the bill doesn’t pass, Trump said he would move on to other issues, despite touting an Obamacare repeal as a priority throughout his campaign.

The president and VP Mike Pence held a meeting with the extremely conservative House Freedom Caucus yesterday afternoon to discuss the bill. A photo from the meeting circulated on social media and was heavily slammed. One of the main topics of conversation was whether to get rid of essential health benefits regulations, which require insurance plans to cover pregnancy and maternity services. But…notice anything missing from this photo?

Here’s the picture of the leaders negotiating away birth control, maternity care & abortion. Notice anything? #ProtectOurCare

(h/t @Emmya2) pic.twitter.com/X1dYUSa7nO

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) March 23, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) faced the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and Wednesday for a confirmation hearing, kicking off a week of hearings for President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees. In the hearing, Sessions, Trump’s selection for attorney general, denied allegations of racism, and highlighted a career spent defending civil rights and combating crime. Protesters, some of whom were dressed in the white-hooded garb of the Ku Klux Klan, repeatedly interrupted the hearing.

The hearing opened with prepared remarks from Sessions, 70, who highlighted his 14-year record arguing criminal cases as an attorney. He also lamented the recent rise in violent crime in America, and marked it as an issue he would tackle as attorney general. “Protecting the people of this country from crime, and especially from violent crime, is the high calling of the men and women of the Department of Justice,” he said. “Today, I am afraid, that has become more important than ever.”

Diverging Beliefs or Duty?

During the hearing, Sessions was adamant about the role of the Justice Department in upholding the nation’s laws, even when they diverged with his, or Trump’s, personal ideology. For example, as a senator, Sessions opposed same-sex marriage, but on Tuesday he said he would acknowledge the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that essentially legalized gay marriage. He also firmly opposed the idea of a Muslim immigration ban, but did say, as Trump has, that immigrants from countries with a history of terrorism could be barred from entering the country.

Weed Watch

In recent weeks, marijuana activists have vocally opposed Trump’s nomination of Sessions, who once said, “good people don’t smoke marijuana.” On Tuesday afternoon, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked Sessions if he would enforce the federal marijuana ban at the state level. “I won’t commit to never enforcing federal law but, absolutely, it’s a problem of resources for the federal government,” Sessions replied. He didn’t offer many specifics on how he’d address the issue, aside from saying he would use “good judgment.”

Allegations of Racism

Sessions, an early, ardent supporter of Trump, also sought to correct the “caricature” of him as a Southern racist. “You have a Southern name; you come from South Alabama, that sounds worse to some people,” he said. Since he was nominated as the nation’s top prosecutor in November, Sessions has come under fire for comments he has made over the years. As a federal attorney in the 1980s, Sessions said the KKK “were OK until I found out they smoked pot.” He also reportedly referred to Thomas Figures, an assistant federal attorney at the time, and a black man, as “boy.”

But Sessions denied harboring any sympathy for the Klan. “I abhor the Klan and what it represents and its hateful ideology,” he said in his opening remarks. He added: “I deeply understand the history of civil rights and the horrendous impact that relentless and systemic discrimination and the denial of voting rights has had on our African-American brothers and sisters. I have witnessed it.”

What About Hillary?

On Hillary Clinton, who he vociferously denounced during the campaign, Sessions said he would not personally oversee any further investigations into her email server or foundation. Instead, he said, he would appoint a special prosecutor if the department decided to pursue her further. “We can never have a political dispute turn into a criminal dispute,” he said. “This country does not punish its political enemies but this country ensures that no one is above the law.”

Historic Dissension

And in an unprecedented move, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), along with Representative John Lewis (D-GA) and Representative Cedric Richmond (D-LA), testified against Sessions. “I do not take lightly the decision to testify against a Senate colleague,” said Booker, who some suspect will run for president in 2020. “But the immense powers of the Attorney General combined with the deeply troubling views of this nominee is a call to conscience.”

Among other views, Booker opposes  Sessions as the next attorney general for his “failure to defend the civil rights of women, minorities and LGBT Americans to his opposition to common sense, bipartisan immigration reform.” In February 2016, Booker said he was “blessed and honored” to partner with Sessions during a ceremony commemorating the 1965 Selma march.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Happened at Senator Jeff Sessions’ Confirmation Hearing? appeared first on Law Street.

Senator vs. Senator: Cory Booker Slams Jeff Sessions

Popular New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker made history yesterday, when he became the first sitting U.S. senator to testify against the nomination of another sitting U.S. senator: Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Sessions is President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for AG. Yesterday, Booker said Sessions has “not demonstrated a commitment to a central requisite of the job: to aggressively pursue the congressional mandate of civil rights, equal rights, and justice for all of our citizens.”

.@CoryBooker testifies against Jeff Sessions: “our country demands a more courageous empathy” pic.twitter.com/Tnr3t9OyPM

— Sen. Cory Booker (@SenBookerOffice) January 11, 2017

Booker’s move drew criticism from Republicans. Representative Chris Collins (R-NY) said that Booker just wanted some time in the spotlight. Others saw it as a sign that Booker may throw his hat into the ring for 2020.

can we just fast-forward to whenever I get to vote for Cory Booker for president?

— Daniel Kanter (@Danielkanter) January 11, 2017

Civil rights icon Representative John Lewis and NAACP President Cornell William Brooks also testified against Sessions. Brooks said that Sessions has shown “disrespect, and even disdain for the civil and human rights of racial and ethnic minorities, women, the disabled, and others who suffer from discrimination in this country.”

But Republican Senator Lindsey Graham responded to those claims, saying that the NAACP is biased and favors Democrats in its Civil Rights Federal Legislative Scorecards. In short: Sessions’ confirmation has turned into a bit of a melee.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 12, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

In today’s toxic political environment, it often truly seems like there are no issues that can spark action on both sides of the aisle. However, both Republicans and Democrats proved that wrong this week, as an effort for comprehensive prison reform moved forward and was introduced in the Senate.

The bipartisan bill is called the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act and will roll back many of the policies established in the tough-on-crime legislation of the late 20th century. While those measures were put in place in an attempt to combat rising crime rates, the policies have led to inconsistent and inappropriate punishments in many cases. These policies have also led to problems such as prison overcrowding.

The bill will end solitary confinement for juveniles, a problem that has gotten particularly focused attention in recent years. If it passes, the bill will also lessen mandatory minimum sentences. Under current federal law, the “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” law lands many who have been convicted of drug offenses to life in prison without parole. This reform would reduce that mandatory sentencing to 25 years.

Overall, the reform will also make other policies more flexible, including the ability of judges to forgo mandatory minimum requirements in some cases, and exceptions for first-time offenders without serious criminal histories. Overall, the bill encompasses a number of changes to policies that are seen as too rigid and punitive.

What’s perhaps most impressive about the bill, however, is its bipartisan nature in a time when bipartisan efforts have become increasingly rare. The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act includes heavyweight senators on both sides of the aisle, most notably Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey), said by some to be a rising Democratic star also was heavily involved, as well as Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah). Other senators involved in the legislation are Jon Cornyn (R-Texas), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) Chuck Schumer (D-New York), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Pat Leahy (D-Vermont). The bill also has some powerful organizations on both sides of the aisle supporting it as well, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Koch brothers. As the political field gets increasingly divisive in the run up to the 2016 election, this is an impressive show of collaboration.

The new legislation is far from perfect, of course, as it will only apply to federal prisons, and doesn’t eliminate many problematic aspects of our justice system. But it’s certainly a step in the right direction–now we’ll have to see whether or not it continues to progress in the Senate.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senators Work Together on Bipartisan Sentencing Reform appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official–Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president. For weeks, any other legitimate potential Democratic challengers have been backing away very quickly from a nomination consideration. Honestly, with the way this race is probably going to go we might as well just have the convention right now, because Hills is definitely sitting pretty.

So now we turn our eyes to the much more interesting and significantly less important race on the Democratic side–who will be Hillary Clinton’s Vice Presidential nominee?

Given that everyone is still freaking out over her announcement, it’s probably best to let the dust settle before coming up with any concrete answer. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have some fun speculating in the meantime.

Speculation about who Clinton may pick includes a lot of mid-to-high-level players in the Democratic Party. Both sitting Virginia senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, might be legitimate choices, as they are from a crucial swing state. Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland, and long considered a potential contender to fight Clinton for the nomination, could also make a strong partner.

Julian Castro, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary and former mayor of San Antonio, could also be a tempting second in command. While Texas isn’t purple yet, it may be relatively soon, and capitalizing on that in advance could be a smart overall strategy for the Democratic Party. Castro is Hispanic, a voting bloc that has become a priority to win for both the Democrat and Republican tickets. Furthermore, Castro is 40 years old–30 years Clinton’s junior. In addition to balancing out her perspective, Castro will look young and virile standing next to Clinton, and assuage those who have concerns about her health.

There are also questions over whether Clinton would only limit the search to men. There are a lot of female rising stars in the Democratic Party, including Elizabeth Warren, the popular senator from Massachusetts. She has said she’s not planning on running, despite the fact that she’d presumably have quite a bit of grassroots support if she chose to. More liberal than Clinton in many ways, including on financial issues and ties to Wall Street, she could energize young liberals who are still hurting from the 2008 recession.

Also from the ranks of Democratic women there’s been talk of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N). That one seems like a long shot though, despite the fact that Gillibrand took over Clinton’s seat when she vacated it to become Secretary of State. She’s gone after some big, important issues in her time in the Senate, such as sexual assault in the military; however, in addition to the fact that Clinton and Gillibrand are seen as somewhat similar, there are concerns over whether a ticket with two people from the same state could even work. The 12th Amendment effectively prohibits that both the President and Vice President be from the same state, but exactly what that means is somewhat difficult to parse out. Clinton and Gillibrand both served as Senators from New York, but does that make them “from” the same state? That would be an issue that would have to be decided, but the idea that she chooses Gillibrand is unlikely to begin with. It could however, impact any other possible VPs from New York, including Governor Andrew Cuomo.

There are plenty of other names for consideration on this list. There’s also Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. She was an attorney with a strong record on crime and safety before being elected to the Senate. Senator Cory Booker is another rising star, particularly after his much-respected time as mayor of Newark, New Jersey. Former Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick has been brought up, and even though he says he’s not interested, that was over a year ago, and he may change his mind.

No matter who Clinton picks, she’s got a solid list from which to choose. As the Republican Party contenders spend the next few months tearing each other down, she’s got time to groom a running mate and solidify her base.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hillary’s In, But Who Will She Run With? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been two-and-a-half years since Hurricane Sandy last dominated headlines, but recently the storm has been pulled back into the media. From the 60 Minutes special “The Storm After the Storm,” to this funny yet poignant spot on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” and an article in last week’s edition of The New York Times have all described problems along the road to recovery.

Some residents of the New York/New Jersey area who received the brunt of the hurricane’s wrath are still waiting to receive full compensation for their damaged homes and businesses. Daily Show correspondent Jordan Klepper created a satirical news package that brought to light the struggles of one Staten Island neighborhood. The spot revealed that victims of Hurricane Sandy are still waiting to receive money to rebuild their destroyed houses. One woman explained that she was frustrated because organizations such as “Build It Back” lose paperwork and do not do enough to help affected communities.

The coverage on “60 Minutes” attributed the delayed or missing compensation to intentionally doctored paperwork, claiming there is evidence that insurance and engineering companies often falsified reports. In one example, a company claimed that the damage caused by the storm was long-term damage that existed before the hurricane rolled into town, even though paperwork from a previous visit to the home determined the damage was due to the storm. The resident maintained that the damage was indeed caused by the events of Hurricane Sandy, producing evidence of the paperwork from the original visit.

How is FEMA reacting to all this hoopla? Well, the organization will be reviewing every flood insurance claim filed by homeowners affected by Hurricane Sandy. FEMA’s message was announced by Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, along with Senators Robert Menendez and Cory Booker, Tweeter Extraordinaire, of New Jersey. (Seriously though, check out Senator Booker’s on-point Twitter account here).

Along with reviewing every flood insurance claim, FEMA will also be launching its own internal inquiry. While all of these reviews and inquiries sound great in theory, there is still not a concrete plan of attack as to when (or how) Sandy victims will be compensated. Steve Mostyn, the lead lawyer representing New York homeowners, remained cautiously optimistic:

We are happy that FEMA now agrees to reopen all Sandy claims. However, that process has not been worked out and the details of that process will determine if it is real or just window dressing.

Hurricane Sandy caused 117 deaths and more than $60 billion worth of damage, second only to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. If America does not improve its process for addressing national disasters, what will happen to homeowners seeking compensation in the future? How many years will they have to wait to rebuild? Is the United States ill-equipped to handle the aftermath of the next deadly tornado in Nebraska, or future large-scale fire in California? Hurricane Sandy might have been an East Coast problem, but fair–and timely–post-storm compensation is a national issue.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hurricane Sandy Recovery Drags on For Devastated Communities appeared first on Law Street.

You’d think that $68 billion would go a long way. According to the Justice Policy Institute, that is how much the United States spends on its criminal justice system every year – and we get what we pay for. The United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population, yet it claims 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population. This staggering number is among the reasons that bipartisanship may make a comeback in U.S. politics. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rand Paul (R-KY) have partnered up to cosponsor the REDEEM Act in an effort to tackle the confused American criminal justice system.

What Does Criminal Justice Reform Look Like?

Booker and Paul’s REDEEM Act – short for the Record Expungement Designed to Enhance Employment Act of 2014 – is meant to restructure sentencing and incarceration in the United States. The bill’s name alludes to the sealing and expungement of criminal records, which are often obstacles in finding employment for ex-convicts.

The bill would allow nonviolent, adult offenders to “to petition a court and make their case” for sealing their criminal records, and for the automatic sealing and expungement of certain juvenile records. The legislation would also introduce additional reforms to the juvenile justice system and the food stamps program.

Why is the U.S. criminal justice system in such disarray? University of Michigan Professor Salomon Orellana claims that our two-party system is partly to blame. In a guest article in the Washington Post, Orellana says that “when both parties (in a two-party system) emphasize toughness it sends a message to the public that toughness is the only legitimate response to crime.” The Republican-Democratic split favors quick-fixes, and their “tough on crime” attitude is the quick-fix America that has been failing with for the past few decades.

Orellana references New Zealand’s shift from a two-party system to one with multiple political parties. He notes that media discussion of tough policies in response to crime were less prominent in the new system. He says, “Under the multiparty system, minor parties received much more attention and consequently a wider variety of positions emerged.” In the case of New Zealand, the debate was changed for the better.

Bipartisanship is, in a way, America’s own third party. Its efforts are rarely popular on the national level but gets a lot of media attention when it happens. However, it’s possible that the REDEEM Act, and criminal justice reform in general, will provide a good opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to work together. The bill’s aisle-crossing authors make such partnerships seem promising, and not just because they are of opposite parties.

Booker and Paul are both extremely popular. Senator Booker gained state-wide celebrity status and makes an effort to work with members of the GOP when possible. Senator Paul has the name recognition of his father, former Congressman Ron Paul, and made noise himself with a unique Republican stance and a legendary filibuster. Both are revered by young people and boast enormous twitter fanbases. As rising stars within their party their actions have received a lot of attention lately, particularly when they attempt to reach across the aisle.

What Should Criminal Justice Reform Sound Like?

Despite its bipartisan co-sponsorship, the REDEEM Act has not broken the “tough on crime” barrier just yet. In an interview with Politico, Booker and Paul sat together to discuss their partnership. Booker remarked that, “it’s no longer this juxtaposition between tough on crime and public safety… You can be tough on crime and lower recidivism rates by doing common sense things.” While Booker’s statement is relatively bold, he still holds onto what should be antiquated rhetoric.

Perpetuating the same discussion that fostered American mass incarceration is a mistake. It would be healthier to foster a political discussion that rejects “tough on crime” as a legitimate response to issues that handcuff our criminal justice system. Because such rhetoric antagonizes those without opportunity, a complete attitudinal shift is necessary.

Professor Michelle Alexander details the history of “tough on crime” policies and the state of mass incarceration in her book The New Jim Crow. Alexander argues that since Nixon, Democratic and Republican presidents alike have employed hard-line crime policies to incarcerate and marginalize blacks in America. If Booker and Paul are serious about reform, and if they truly consider it a civil rights issue, they will abandon the tough stance that perpetuates many of the issues in our criminal justice system.

Nevertheless, punitive measures do not need to be phased out. Nor would they be. As Orellana writes about multiparty New Zealand, “there were still calls for punishment and enforcement, but there were also calls for alternative solutions.” Rather than promoting “tough on crime” policies working with public safety initiatives, the conversation should demand a balance between fair incarceration and effective rehabilitation.

While the REDEEM Act would be a step in the right direction, the legislation and the discussion surrounding it both fall short. But if we consider the hostility with which our Congress “operates”, the passage of this bill would be a milestone for its authors and the U.S. criminal justice system.

Latest updates on the REDEEM Act:

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia and JD Lasica via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The New Bipartisan Faces of Criminal Justice Reform appeared first on Law Street.