Arguably the most prominent debate about inequality in the justice system has been the killing of black men by police officers who are often white. Aided by the ubiquity of smartphones used to document these shootings and the growing prominence of movements like Black Lives Matter, the issue has been thrust into the spotlight in recent years. But despite a glaring lack of data, the issue had likely been a problem long before it received so much public attention. While police shootings have rightly become an issue, racial disparities persist in areas of the justice system that often go unnoticed. A notable example of this is justifiable homicides.

In a new analysis from The Marshall Project, researchers found that both the race of the victim and killer are associated with large differences in the rate at which killings are ruled justified. “When a white person kills a black man in America, the killer often faces no legal consequences,” write authors Anna Flag and Daniel Lathrop. They found that although about 2 percent of all homicides committed by civilians were ruled justifiable between 1980 and 2014, 17 percent of homicides involving a white person killing a black man were deemed justifiable homicides. That rate stands out when you compare it to other circumstances; the authors find:

In comparison, when Hispanics killed black men, about 5.5 percent of cases were called justifiable. When whites killed Hispanics, it was 3.1 percent. When blacks killed whites, the figure was just 0.8 percent. When black males were killed by other blacks, the figure was about 2 percent, the same as the overall rate.

It is important to note that in most homicides, the killer and the victim are the same race, and few involve people who are strangers. But although this research covers a fairly small percentage of all homicides, the scale of the racial differences are quite notable.

The analysis, which used data for more than 400,000 homicides between 1980 and 2014, provides a detailed picture of when killings are ruled justified. While the FBI collects data for several different violent and property crimes, it offers expanded data for homicides allowing for several additional layers of analysis. The expanded data includes details about the victim and killer–including age, race, ethnicity, and sex–as well as the circumstances of the crime, like whether a weapon was involved and how the police classified the incident.

There are large racial disparities in the overall number of justifiable homicides, and those differences persist when you filter the data down to a variety of circumstances. Regardless of the relationship of the victim and the killer, differences in age, whether a weapon was used, or the police department reporting the incident, the disparities persist. Flag and Lathrop note,

Even after adjusting for the ages of the killer and victim, their relationship and the weapon used, the likelihood of a white-on-black-male case being called justifiable was still 4.7 times higher than in other cases.

U.S. law generally grants people the right to use lethal force when they fear their lives or the lives of others are in danger, while the specific details of self-defense laws are left up to the states. Much of the research on justifiable homicides has focused on what are known as Stand Your Ground laws, which typically expand a person’s right to use lethal force to a wider range of circumstances. These laws became particularly controversial in 2012 when George Zimmerman was acquitted of killing Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager. In fact, the police decided against arresting Zimmerman in the immediate aftermath of the shooting because he claimed that he acted in self-defense, which is likely a result of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

A study published earlier this week in JAMA Internal Medicine found that both justifiable homicides and the total number of murders increased significantly after Florida passed its Stand Your Ground law in 2005. According to the researchers, the total increase in murders–up about 22 percent in the 10 years since the law was passed–exceeded what is attributable to the increase in justifiable homicides alone. The authors note that in the six years before the state enacted its Stand Your Ground Law, justifiable homicides accounted for 3.4 percent of all homicides. That percentage increased to 8.7 percent between 2006 and 2015, a 75 percent increase.

Another study of justifiable homicides from 2013, which focused on the consequences of state Stand Your Ground laws, found racial disparities that are similar to those found by the Marshall Project. In his analysis of the FBI’s expanded homicide data, John Roman at the Urban Institute concluded that not only are there are large racial differences in justifiable homicide rulings, but Stand Your Ground laws actually increase those disparities.

There are important limitations in the FBI data that prevent broad conclusions about the potential role of racial prejudice in these findings, however. One notable example is that while the FBI collects a lot of supplemental information about these homicides, police departments do not provide data on the location of the incidents. If the location–an important piece of the context in self defense claims–is systematically different in cases where a white person kills a black man, the disparity could be attributed to that. Put another way, the facts of a homicide that occurred in someone’s home may be quite different from one that occurred on the street. Because we cannot know all of these crucial details about each case, we can’t conclude that racial bias, either on the part of the police or a jury, is responsible for the difference. Additionally, there can be notable gaps in the available data because it is voluntarily reported by the police and does not always reflect the final result of a case. The authors note that while a jury ultimately acquitted George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin, Martin’s death was classified as “other” in FBI data rather than as a justifiable homicide.

While we cannot know for sure whether prejudice is responsible for the racial discrepancies, there are a number of ways that such bias could come into play. From prosecutorial discretion over whether a case even goes to trial, to the inherent subjectivity involved in determining whether a person is in danger, overt and implicit bias certainly could play a role in these rulings.

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 Research Finds Justifiable Homicide Rulings More Likely to Benefit White Americans appeared first on Law Street.

Republican Vice Presidential nominee Mike Pence is being criticized for his response to a controversial case in which a man was wrongfully convicted. Now the man is asking to go back to court for another trial since Pence, as Indiana’s Governor, won’t grant him a pardon until he has tried all other judicial options.

Keith Cooper spent almost ten years in prison for armed robbery, a crime he didn’t commit but was wrongfully convicted for in 1996. During the robbery a teenager was shot in the stomach but survived. When another man involved in the case had his conviction overturned because of new evidence that surfaced in 2005, authorities offered Cooper a new trial, which could take at least two years–or the chance to go home to his family but have a felony conviction on his record.

After being locked up for a decade, Cooper chose the latter. He could finally see his wife and three children again. But since it’s been next to impossible to find a decent job as a convicted felon, he later sought a gubernatorial pardon. In the spring of 2014 the parole board in Indiana unanimously urged Pence to grant Cooper a pardon. This would likely have been the first pardon based on actual innocence in Indiana history.

Mike Pence refuses to pardon an innocent and wrongly convicted man, yet GOP runs a willie horton ad attacking Kaine https://t.co/389BIxtBcQ

— geokaren (@geokaren) October 4, 2016

And according to DNA evidence, Cooper is innocent. The victims and original prosecutor believe in Cooper’s innocence as well. But despite that fact, Pence’s office said in a September 20 letter that Cooper must first try all other judicial options. Basically that means Pence doesn’t have to make a decision about granting a pardon before he leaves office in January.

Many of Cooper’s supporters wanted the case to be brought up at the Vice Presidential debate on Tuesday.

Mike Pence should be asked why he has not pardoned Keith Cooper, an innocent man wrongly imprisoned for ten years. #VPDebate #KeithCooper

— Mike Williams (@drummike2012) October 4, 2016

Can’t believe @mike_pence said this during the #VPDebate Actions speak louder than words! #PardonKeithCooper @ElliotSlosar pic.twitter.com/5WHwWC7at4

— Pardon Keith Cooper (@PardonKeith) October 5, 2016

Cooper’s attorney Elliot Slosar said:

The lack of courage displayed by Gov. Pence is shocking. Instead of using his executive power to change the life of an innocent man, Gov. Pence has decided to punt this issue to the next governor of Indiana and inform Mr. Cooper that he needs to head back to the same court where he got wrongfully convicted in the first place.

But Pence’s deputy of staff chief Matthew Lloyd replied:

The governor’s office believes this is a necessary and proper approach that will produce information the governor will need as he considers a pardon for Mr. Cooper.

Pence has only pardoned three people during his three years as governor, while his predecessor Mitch Daniels pardoned 60 people during eight years in office. The Cooper case has gained serious support on social media as well as on an online petition–we’ll have to see if it has any effect on Pence’s numbers.

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 Innocent Man Seeks New Trial After Governor Mike Pence Declined Pardon appeared first on Law Street.

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe received fierce opposition from Virginia republicans when he released an executive order in late April to restore voting rights to over 200,000 ex-felons. McAuliffe’s opponents argued that he was overstepping his restoration powers in his capacity as governor and that he only had the power to restore voting rights on a case-by-case basis. On July 22, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that he had indeed overstepped his constitutional powers in a 4-3 decision, shooting down his blanket restoration move. 

When he first took up the fight to restore voting rights for released felons, McAuliffe—who has historically been engaged in national democratic politics as former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and co-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign—was criticized for using restoration as a political tool. With one in five adult African-Americans being disenfranchised in Virginia, republican opponents argued that McAuliffe was trying to “unlock” the minority vote in the wake of the 2016 presidential election.

McAuliffe starkly denies this. Rather, he claims that any citizen who has completed the full term of their sentence shouldn’t be disenfranchised. McAuliffe aims to relieve some of the ex-felons’ burden by restoring voting rights, as disenfranchisement is one of the most significant collateral consequences facing prison releasees.

While the Howell v. McAuliffe decision is certainly a setback, McAuliffe isn’t done with his battle for voting rights quite yet. In a statement released following the July 22 decision McAuliffe promised that he will still pursue restoration. The governor will individually sign 13,000 restoration orders this month and will not stop signing restoration orders until all affected individuals reclaim their right to vote.

Virginia is one of less than ten states that still disenfranchises felons who have completed all terms of their sentence, and is one of less than five states where over 20 percent of African-American adults are disenfranchised. Thus felon disenfranchisement—in addition to the disproportionate incarceration of African-Americans—has the innately undemocratic effect of suppressing minority votes and minority voices.

McAuliffe holds that his action is unpartisan, that he is acting to alleviate the intense injustices that have plagued Virginia’s past. He holds that voting rights ensure certain citizens aren’t being unfairly targeted and excluded from the democratic process.

During his tenure, McAuliffe has championed many issues of inequality. Such instances include initiating preschool programs in impoverished schools/communities, vetoing multiple pieces of legislation aiming to restrict abortion access, and more. The closing sentiment of his statement on the voting rights case sums up the progressive governor’s spirit: “The struggle for civil rights has always been a long and difficult one, but the fight goes on.”

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Virginia Governor Wages Fierce Fight for Voting Rights appeared first on Law Street.

At the end of last July, the Obama Administration selected 67 colleges to participate in an experimental pilot program through the Department of Education (DOE) to extend Pell Grants to certain incarcerated individuals. The experimental program will impact up to 12,000 inmates working to earn a post-secondary degree. 141 correctional institutions will take part in the Second Chance Pell Grant program. 

This monumental move in criminal justice policy marks the first time inmates will be eligible for Pell Grants in over 20 years, when the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 explicitly banned grants to any incarcerated individuals. Though that bill is still in place, the new pilot program is granted through experimentation under the Higher Education Act.

As for the grants, they function in the same way as grants for non-incarcerated students. Federal Pell Grants are available to students seeking a college degree with demonstrated financial need. The grant is proportional to the student’s income with a maximum amount of $5,815 for the 2016-2017 academic year.

The initiative follows a slew of research in recent years showing that educational rehabilitation for inmates sharply decreases recidivism, increases social capital, and aids re-entry into society. One such 2013 study found that individuals who participated in correctional education were 43 percent less likely to recidivate in the three years after release than individuals who didn’t participate in education. Further, the program serves individuals marked for release within the next five years, the demographic educational programming will benefit most.

But the program has been met with some public disapproval, largely because some believe that confronting the student debt epidemic in the U.S. and extending grant programs for traditional students should receive higher priority than funding education for incarcerated students.

Nevertheless, the DOE has made their priorities and intentions clear with regards to the intersection of criminal justice and education. In a report released this month, the DOE pointed out that in the last 25 years average spending on PK-12 education has increased around 100 percent, whereas correctional spending has increased around 300 percent. That figure is even higher in states like Texas, where correctional spending has increased by 850 percent during the same time period. 

Investing in education is a cost effective method for reducing crime. The DOE report points to a study which found that a 10 percent increase in high school graduation rates could result in an approximately nine percent decrease in arrest rates leading to drastically fewer inmates and prison costs.

As a snapshot example, it cost the city of New York an average $167,731 for each inmate held in a correctional institution in 2013. By reducing arrests and thus incarceration, correctional institutions can re-allocate greater funds towards rehabilitative services like vocational training and higher education aided by Pell Grants.

For now, the Pell Grant extension to inmates is experimental, but marks an important shift away toward rehabilitative approach to inmates within the U.S. criminal justice system. A grant program that was created to allow students to go to college who otherwise could not has a clear purpose in correctional institutions where inmates may have their only chance to pursue a college degree.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Administration to Extend Pell Grants to 12,000 Inmates appeared first on Law Street.

As of 2015, there were 2,800 drug courts in the United States and they were working with 120,000 defendants per year. The idea behind these courts is to use the criminal justice system to compel addicts to rehabilitate themselves. The ultimate goal is to reduce recidivism for drug use and the other crimes that often accompany drug addiction. In order to do this, drug courts use both a carrot and a stick approach with addicts. Courts promise to reduce or eliminate jail time in exchange for the successful completion of a drug treatment program–hopefully saving money for taxpayers along the way.

The first drug court program was started in 1989 and represented a very different approach to dealing with drug crimes. A traditional criminal justice approach is for the court to only analyze if the state has proved that the defendant committed the crime and then to sentence him or her. Drug courts are an attempt to cure the underlying cause of these crimes in the first place, based on a better understanding of the nature of addiction. Drugs were increasingly being viewed as a public health crisis and not an individual moral failing. Traditional criminal justice approaches can do nothing to combat that kind of problem and are not designed to take those factors into consideration.

Drug courts were therefore built on the idea that the court is part of a team–including law enforcement, prosecutors, social workers, and the defendant–that is engaged in helping the defendant to stop using drugs and not commit future crimes. The judge in a drug court also takes on an active role in the defendant’s treatment. This engagement by the court is actually a key factor in the lives of defendants where drug courts have proven successful. At the very least, drug courts represent a judicial system that is trying to adapt to our evolving knowledge about drug addiction and the best ways to combat it.

But drug courts may not be as enlightened a solution to the problem of drug addiction as they seem at first blush. There are serious concerns about the scope of drug courts in terms of who can participate, the role of judges, and the rights that defendants give up in order to be a part of this process. There are also questions about the efficacy of these programs and whether the same goals could be accomplished through different means.

How Do Drug Courts Work?

Drug courts actually come in two main varieties, which is a nuance that is sometimes lost in the debate–deferred prosecution, and post-adjudication. In the deferred prosecution model (sometimes referred to as a “diversion” model), defendants are sent to a rehabilitative program or are given a set of guidelines before they are prosecuted. If they successfully complete their program the charges are dropped. In contrast, the post-adjudication model requires that the defendants plead guilty to the charges they face and are then sent to a drug program. If they complete the program successfully the sentence will be waived and the record potentially expunged.

This may not seem like an important difference if, after a drug program is completed, the defendant avoids jail time in both cases. But it is a very important difference for defendants who don’t successfully complete their programs. This is because in a deferred prosecution model the defendant goes back to the beginning of the process and still retains their right to plea bargain or plead not guilty and receive a jury trial. For defendants with a weak case against them or sympathetic facts, that can be significant. The defendant in a post-adjudication model drug court goes right to the sentencing phase of their trial–because in order to participate in the program a defendant must first plead guilty.

In this short video, Mae Quinn, the co-director of the Civil Justice Clinic at Washington University in St. Louis, discusses drug courts and her experience working in one of the earliest ones in the 1990s.

Concerns about Drug Courts

Quinn’s video presents us with several concerns about drug courts that should be unpacked. The first concern is one that could be viewed as both a blessing and a curse. In drug courts, judicial involvement with the defendant is much more intimate than it is in a traditional court setting. Judges are less like the neutral arbitrators of a normal court proceeding. Instead, they are as Quinn suggests, part of a “team” of people–which includes the defendant–who are working on the defendant’s sobriety. This could be of enormous benefit to drug users. And, in fact, the research suggests that one of the main indicators of success for a defendant in a drug court program is the level of involvement that a judge has in the process.

One study found a startling difference between defendants who were required to attend biweekly hearings with the judge in their case and those who only attended hearings on an “as-needed” basis. In the former group, 80 percent of participants graduated (completed the program) and in the latter group, only 20 percent of participants did so. Both groups involved high-risk drug court participants, meaning participants who had previously failed treatment.

One of the criticisms of drug courts is that the people who need them the most often don’t have access to them. Federal grants to establish these courts, which are still managed on the state or local level, make excluding violent offenders a pre-requisite to taking grant money. These courts also tend to restrict access to drug court programs for addicts who have long criminal records or histories of failure. Placement in a treatment program can also be difficult to get, with long wait times before entering into a program. Since placement in a program within 30 days is one of the strongest predictors of a successful outcome, these wait times have a negative impact on the success of drug courts, especially for women who have to wait twice as long for an available spot in a treatment program.

As Professor Quinn discusses in the video, defendants sometimes receive a longer sentence than they otherwise would have if they participate in a drug court program and fail–sometimes two to five times the length of the prison term they would otherwise have received. Since “flash incarcerations,” or short prison stays, are also one of the sanctions available to judges they may also spend more time in jail even if they have the charges dropped after graduating from the program and therefore face no sentence for their initial crime. Drug courts may also encourage law enforcement officials to arrest more low-level drug offenders since they view drug courts as a better means of processing them, which puts additional stress on the system and exacerbates some of these concerns.

Yet there is evidence that for some individuals these programs can be very effective. Take a look at this Ted Talk by Judge David Ashworth, who is the presiding judge of the Lancaster County Drug Court.

Measuring Results

The courts that Judge Ashworth describes may be different from the “typical” drug court because they are controlled at the state and local level and can vary widely. For example, Judge Ashworth’s court specifically targets “high risk” drug users. Participation is also voluntary and is designed, by his own admission, for people who already want to get clean. It is, however, a post-adjudication style court, meaning that the defendant pleads guilty as the first step in their drug court process.

The statistics he cites suggest that the drug court of Lancaster County has been particularly successful for those who graduate, reducing recidivism rates to below those of the national average. But not all of the participants in drug courts end up graduating from the program. Most of the pro-drug court data out there is written in terms of how much recidivism is reduced among graduates, but may not include the number of initial participants who enter the program in the first place.

Critics claim that this can lead to an overly positive picture of the impact of drug courts, particularly in jurisdictions that cherry-pick data. Jurisdictions are forced to exclude many types of potential defendants, most notably anyone who has committed a violent crime, in order to receive federal funding. One study indicated that, because of the eligibility restrictions, only 7 percent of the 1.5 million arrested for drug offenses were eligible to participate. Only half of the initial participants in most drug court programs end up graduating. A study of New York’s drug courts by the Urban Institute and the Center for Court Innovation found that for those who participated in drug courts, 64 percent of the non-graduates were re-arrested within three years, versus 36 percent of the graduates. But of those who were arrested but did not participate in a drug court, only 44 percent were re-arrested in the same period. So defendants were actually more likely to be re-arrested if they went to drug court and failed to complete the program than if they had gone through the normal court process in the first place.

One of the most significant issues with drug courts that Judge Ashworth did not address is the issue of maintenance treatment. Maintenance treatment, which involves using drugs like methadone to treat opioid addiction, is by far the most effective means of treatment–reducing the risk of death by 66 to 75 percent. But a third of drug courts will not allow it.

Drug courts vary widely in different localities, just as their effectiveness varies widely based on the kinds of judges serving on them. That can be positive in that it allows jurisdictions to experiment with different methods of operation. However in jurisdictions where those experiments are unsuccessful, it can lead to tragic outcomes and the judges involved in drug courts may not be specially trained in the science behind addiction, particularly opioid addiction. The increased flexibility of judges to deal with drug addicts in a drug court setting is only a positive if these judges are both eager to help the addicts in their court and properly educated on how to do so.

Conclusion

As a society, we have acknowledged that drug addiction, and the crimes that accompany it, are somehow different than other crimes; that it is as much a public health crisis as it is an issue of safety. Conservatives and liberals are both willing to seek innovations in how we deal with these individuals. Drug courts actually end up appealing to both sides of the aisle for various reasons.

The truth about drug courts is more complicated than it appears. These programs are not “hug-a-thug” initiatives, as Judge Ashworth points out. And while they may save money, they only do so when they keep people from seeing jail time at all, not when they just delay incarceration until after participants fail the program. The best elements of drug courts–judicial flexibility and interdisciplinary teams working with defendants–should be encouraged. In fact, these characteristics could be beneficial in other parts of the justice system as well, even for violent offenses. But the negative aspects need to be addressed. Defendants should not be coerced into pleading guilty to participate in treatment. Access to rehabilitation should be opened up to more cases, not just the “easy” ones that make drug courts look better, access should be increased for female offenders, and maintenance treatment for opioid addiction needs to be addressed.

Resources

The Sentencing Project: Drug Courts: A Review of the Evidence

Pacific Standard: How America Overdosed On Drug Courts

SADO: Michigan State Appellate Defender Office

WhiteHouse.gov: Drug Courts Fact Sheet

TribLive: Westmoreland District Courts First in PA to Offer Drug Treatment in Lieu of Punishment

National Institute of Justice: Drug Courts

U.S. Department of Justice: Drug Courts

DrugWarFacts.org: Drug Courts

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Pro & Con: Drug Courts An Effective Alternative For Offenders?

Open Society Foundation: Drug Courts Are Not The Answer

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Are Drug Courts the Answer For Addicts Who Commit Crimes? appeared first on Law Street.

The prison system is meant to deter crime, provide public safety, and rehabilitate criminals. But today, the Supreme Court told us that too often that last aim is ignored in the case of juvenile offenders. The court ruled 6-3 to allow prisoners convicted of a crime they committed while they were juveniles to have their life without parole sentences reconsidered.

In a 2012 ruling, Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court barred “life without parole” sentencing for juveniles, but only for future convictions, affecting none of the currently imprisoned people, for the sake of preserving the “finality of conviction.”Today in Montgomery vs. Louisiana, the court had the rare effect of retroactively altering the sentences of inmates. The case, centered around Henry Montgomery, a man who shot and killed a deputy sheriff at the age of 17. Montgomery is now 69, and for his entire adult life has known nothing but the prison system.

#SCOTUS holds Miller’s prohibition on mandatory life w/out parole for juvenile offenders IS retroactive in cases of state collateral review

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) January 25, 2016

Some states individually chose to adjust the sentences of convicted juveniles following the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling. This means that the new retroactive ruling only affects the sentences of about 1,000 inmates out of the 2,341 people convicted as juveniles facing life sentences, according to a study by The Phillips Black Project. More than half of that population had already been allowed to seek reconsideration of their sentences, as long as they can prove that their “crimes reflected their transient immaturity.”

The entire course of this argument hinges on whether a life sentence should only apply to an incorrigible person–that is, one with no hope of rehabilitation–and whether a juvenile is capable of being incorrigible at a young age. Justice Kennedy wrote in his opinion that “prisoners like Montgomery must be given the opportunity to show their crime did not reflect irreparable corruption; and, if it did not, their hope for some years of life outside prison walls must be restored.” This ruling adds on to the ban on “life without parole” sentencing for juveniles unless the prosecutor can prove that the specific individual is beyond saving. While standards of incorrigibility vary by state, they typically focus on the accused showing repeated examples of behavior and no response to reprimands from authority.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Undoes “Life Without Parole” Sentences For Juveniles appeared first on Law Street.

In the span of four days–between October 30 and November 2–federal prisons around the country released 6,000 nonviolent prisoners. This marked the largest single prisoner release in the history of the United States. The decision was the result of the government’s growing desire to address the overcrowding within the prison system. An additional 40,000 convicts could also be released in the coming months as new, more lenient sentencing rules can be retroactively applied to them as well. Read on to see what led to the recent release and how it compares to similar releases in the past. Now that the government is starting to deal with an issue that has been building for decades, what will a continued response look like and how will the prison system change in the future?

Releasing Prisoners

In the Past

While the recent release of so many prisoners all at once has drawn a variety of reactions, including warnings of increased crime, this is not the first time that a large number of prisoners has been released. In 2011, the Supreme Court ordered the state of California to release 30,000 inmates due to overcrowding in the state’s prison system.

On top of this are the prisoners that are also released over the course of a year as well–the federal government releases up to 55,000 prisoners each year. However, this is only a small portion of the inmates set free, as many as 10,000 are set free each week.

This Release

The recent release was a long time in the making. The final decision came about following the advice of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The commission lowered maximum sentences for people convicted of drug-related offenses. The change could then be applied retroactively, meaning if a prisoner was already convicted and serving a sentence they could apply for early release. Ultimately, the decision was up to federal judges who reviewed eligible cases and determined whether the person in question would be a threat if released back into society.

Like the process, the release itself was not as straightforward as it may seem either. Of the 6,000 inmates, approximately a third were undocumented immigrants. This group will not be released into the public, but will instead be detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which will begin deportation proceedings. Additionally, many of those who were released were already on parole or in half-way houses. On average, those being released already served nine years of their sentences and were only being released around 18 months earlier than expected. The video below details the recent release:

Current Issues

Overcrowding

One of the major reasons for releasing these prisoners is that the prison population is simply too big for the system to manage effectively. There are 698 prisoners for every 100,000 people in the United States, the second highest rate in the world. A 2014 estimate from the Prison Policy Initiative suggests that there are as many as 2.4 million people in U.S. prisons on any given day, including 1.36 million in state prisons. Perhaps most troubling are the findings of a Department of Justice report, which shows that there are nearly 71,000 children in residential placement facilities in February 2010.

In order to properly put this in perspective, it is necessary to look at the U.S. prison population in an international context. As the NAACP points out, the United States has about 5 percent of the world’s population, but it has 25 percent of the world’s prison population. Not only is the United States’ prison population disproportionately large, its racial makeup is also heavily imbalanced. Although Hispanics and African Americans make up approximately 25 percent of the total population, they make up close to 60 percent of all American prisoners.

While simply having a massive number of prisoners does not necessarily mean that the existing prisons are overcrowded, when you look at the concentration of these prisoners it becomes clear that overcrowding is clearly an issue for many states. In fact, California’s mass prison release in 2011 was due specifically to over-crowding.  There were so many prisoners that inmates were being packed into gymnasiums. The situation became so bad that the Supreme Court forced the prisoner release because it was literally a health crisis. California is not an isolated case. While it may be the most extreme example, as of 2014, 17 states had prison populations far above the capacity of their facilities. While overcrowding recently caused states to reconsider their justice systems, it also led to the rise of controversial for-profit private prisons.

Sentencing

Overcrowding is largely a product of the United States’ historically severe sentencing rules. The idea of being “tough on crime” swept the nation in the 1980s. Tough on crime policies continued through the 1990s and early 2000s and only now is the trend starting to reverse itself. The severity of these laws varied from state to state. California had some of the toughest policies, enacting a three strikes law in 1994 that created mandatory punishments for repeat offenders. In 2012, California voters passed Proposition 36, which amended the state’s constitution to limit the use of its three-strikes law.

These sentences are known as mandatory minimums. As the name suggests, these policies lead to mandatory sentences of a minimum length for particular crimes, removing much of the discretion that judges have in the sentencing process. According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), “Most mandatory minimum sentences apply to drug offenses, but Congress has enacted them for other crimes, including certain gun, pornography, and economic offenses.” A U.S. Sentencing Commission report found that 14.5 percent of all offenders in 2010 were subject to mandatory minimum penalties–a total of 10,605 prisoners.

What’s Next?

While there are some who fear that releasing so many prisoners, especially at the same time, will lead to a surge in crime, the numbers suggest otherwise. In the California mass release, only auto thefts increased after 30,000 of the state’s inmates were released. Furthermore, a Stanford University study, which involved 1,600 prisoners released when California changed its three strikes law, found a remarkably low recidivism rate. Prisoners released after the three-strikes law changed had a recidivism rate of just 1.3 percent compared to 30 percent for regularly released inmates.

Not all laws are created equally–perhaps the most infamous is the differing penalties for crack cocaine offenses compared to the one for cocaine in its powder form. Originally, the sentencing ratio was 100:1–with those sentenced for crack-related offenses facing much longer prison sentences. While that was reduced to 18:1 with the Fair Sentencing Act in 2010, a disparity remains. The troubling part of this issue is that most people arrested for crack-related offenses were black while most of those who were arrested for cocaine possession were white–reinforcing the racial imbalance in American prisons.

Post-Release Questions 

Another major issue is the question of what former prisoners will do once they get out. A notable concern is recidivism–when a prisoner returns to prison for another crime after his or her initial release. This worry seems warranted in light of a 2005 study by conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)–57 percent were re-imprisoned after one year, 68 percent by year three, and 77 percent by year five.

It should be noted that the way the Bureau of Justice Statistics records its numbers may not be the best way to understand recidivism. In a recent study, researchers found that recidivism is actually much lower than what is reported. Rates found in the BJS studies likely overrepresent people who are re-arrested after being released from prison.  However, even if these new findings are taken into account, which emphasize that certain offenders have a higher risk of recidivism, the issue remains a notable problem for American prisons.

Moreover, for those who do avoid re-offending, life can be difficult once they leave prison. While there are certainly a number of programs and organizations in place, it is still hard for someone with a criminal record to find a job. In a 2008 study from the Urban Institute, only 45 percent of ex-cons had jobs eight months after leaving prison. The following video discusses what happens to prisoners if and when they can make it out of prison:

Conclusion

The recent release of so many prisoners has reignited old fears that the reintroduction of prisoners into society will lead to a wave of crime. However, the evidence from past releases calls this line of thinking into question. Too many people, especially those of color, face long prison sentences, putting significant strain on American prisons. The current system is also costing the United States an estimated $39 billion each year.

To effectively reduce the size of the American prison population, changes beyond releasing prisoners need to be made. While recent sentencing reform, which led to this prisoner release, is an important step toward reducing the American prison population, it will not solve the issue. In addition to reducing the number of prisoners, policymakers will also have to deal with helping inmates readjust to society when they are released.

Resources

Vox: The biggest prisoner release in U.S. History, explained

Time: What happened when California released 30,000 inmates?

NPR: What You Should Know About the Federal Inmate Release

Newsweek: The Unconstitutional Horrors of Prison Overcrowding

FAMM: What are Mandatory Minimums?

The Economist: America’s Prison Population

CNN: Roughly 6000 Federal Inmates to be released

ACLU: Fair Sentencing Act

National Institute of Justice: Recidivism

Business Insider: Getting a Job after prison

NAACP: Criminal Justice Fact Sheet

Washington Post: Prisons in These 17 States are Over Capacity

Huffington Post: For-Profit Prisons are Big Winners of California’s Overcrowding Crisis

Slate: Why do so Many Prisoners End up Back in Prison? A New Study Says Maybe They Don’t

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What A Massive Prisoner Release Means for the Criminal Justice System appeared first on Law Street.

In July, President Obama became the first sitting president to visit a federal prison when he traveled to the El Reno Correctional Facility in Oklahoma. While there, he addressed the inmates, discussing the importance of rehabilitation and job-training to ensure their success after serving time behind bars. Now, the President is taking action to help former prisoners reenter society, a key part in his push to “overhaul the criminal justice system.”

Yesterday, President Obama laid out initiatives to help ex-inmates get jobs, housing and education, while also providing $8 million in federal education grants to fund communities establishing reentry programs. The President also has plans to visit Integrity House, a substance abuse treatment center in Washington, D.C., to meet with convicted drug offenders and discuss ways to get their lives back on track. According to an official statement from the White House:

President Obama will continue to promote these goals by highlighting the reentry process of formerly-incarcerated individuals and announce new actions aimed at helping Americans who’ve paid their debt to society rehabilitate and reintegrate back into their communities.

The difficulties that ex-inmates face reintegrating into society are so often overlooked for a variety of reasons. While in prison, inmates are ripped away from society, which not only impacts their own self-perception and worth, but the rest of society’s perception of them. They become a separate entity; an enigmatic group of deplorable beings who are so different from “us.” This mentality leads to indifference toward the fundamental human rights and needs that ex-inmates need just like everyone else: protection, security, stability, and other basic elements of human life.

President Obama is paving the way for us to change the way we view ex-inmates, and truly give them a chance to rehabilitate and move on with their lives. Countless studies and articles have been published around the world on this issue, arguing that stronger programs and systems of reintegration and rehabilitation will lessen recidivism rates in crime. The execution of President Obama’s plan to better help ex-inmates reintegrate into society may be the beginning of a change in crime culture in the United States, and in the world.

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama Unveils Plan to Help Prisoners Reintegrate into Society appeared first on Law Street.

Praised as a “tremendous step forward” toward meaningful penal reform, the Mandela Rules provide a framework for what is and is not permissible in terms of detention conditions in prisons across the globe. With 10 million people in prisons worldwide, it’s easy to assume that there is a high demand for the humane treatment of prisoners. However, while the Mandela Rules have been commended for their progressive revisions of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMRs) that have been in place since 1955, there is still no guarantee that prisons, domestically or internationally, will improve.

For a document that is supposed to provide governments the guidelines necessary to ensure that basic rights are afforded to prisoners, the Mandela Rules fail to provide incentives to abide by them or a method of accountability for prisons that break them. Furthermore, the lack of widespread discussion on the new rules is shocking, and perhaps telling of the low level of importance that both the public and politicians place on reforming the criminal justice system. Just like under the previous SMRs that the Mandela Rules revised, prisons will continue to cut corners, mistreat prisoners, and break this agreement unless there is more legal pressure and incentives to treat inmates with dignity.

The SMRs have since 1955 acted as the universally acknowledged minimum standards for the detention of prisoners and for the development of correctional laws, policies, and practices. On May 22^nd of this year, however, the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (the Crime Commission) passed a resolution approving the revised standards, named the Mandela Rules after the late South African President Nelson Mandela who was imprisoned for 27 years. These changes were prompted after a review of the SMRs in place concluded that advancements in human rights discourse since 1955 left the SMRs out of date. The Crime Commission identified nine areas for revision, agreeing that the new standards should reflect advances in technology and society.

Rules on health care, LGBT rights, and solitary confinement are the key modifications in the Mandela Rules, but a prison that does not want to be held accountable for treating inmates with dignity can easily dismantle almost all of the updates. One of the most acclaimed aspects of the new rules is that indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement is prohibited. Solitary is defined as confinement of a prisoner for 22 hours or more a day, and prolonged solitary is defined as confinement for fifteen consecutive days. So solitary confinement for fifteen consecutive days is not allowed, but what about fifteen days in confinement, one day out of confinement, and fifteen more days within? The new Rules have so many loopholes and almost no accountability for the “advances” they claim to make in the treatment of prisoners.

The Rules emphasize that prisoners should be protected from torture and inhumane or degrading treatment and punishment. The United Nations will adopt these Rules later this year, though nothing but the potential for an internationally-backed slap on the wrist will prevent prisons from operating under standard minimums. If anything, the Mandela Rules simply say, “Look, we know prisons are bad, and prisoners are being tortured around the world. There’s not much we care to do about that, but here’s some advice that you should follow if you want.”

Yes, state and federal prisons do have their own separate laws in place regarding the treatment of prisoners, but are those laws abided by? The answer, especially in the United States, is a resounding “No.” Even though prison guards are expected to keep inmates safe, there were more than 5.8 million violent crimes self-reported by inmates in 2012. Four percent of the prison population reports being sexually victimized while in prison in the past year, and over half of the incidents involved a prison guard or other staff member. Even though health care is supposed to be afforded to prisoners, 1,300 lawsuits have been filed in the past ten years in Illinois alone against the state because health care in Illinois prisons is so poor that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. These are only a few examples of failures of concrete laws that have been breeched, and continue to be broken, in prisons across the country. If the initial SMRs were never fully realized in prisons across the world, what hope do we have that the Mandela Rules, which raise the standards that were never even abided by in the first place, will actually be implemented?

Several sponsors of the new SMRs note the importance of civil society in the success of the Mandela Rules. The American Civil Liberties Union’s David Fathi said, “The Rules are only as good as their implementation.” Fathi expressed that both the public and decision makers must be aware of the rules and see them as a national priority in order for the Mandela Rules to be effective. But what if we live in a society in which the public does not see the humane treatment of prisoners as a national priority? And what if we live in a society in which private groups are swaying lawmakers to extend prison sentences and to create harsher punishments? While the Mandela Rules do offer a sort of cheat sheet for evaluating a state’s prison performance, they do not do anything about the public apathy towards the inhumane treatment of prisoners and they do not erase the negative stigmas that pro-prison lobby groups and lawmakers have instilled in the minds of millions. None of the 2016 U.S. presidential candidates have mentioned the Mandela Rules in their campaigns or expressed a plan to ensure that they are implemented in our prisons. If civil society has a critical role to play in the humane treatment of prisoners, and the current campaign rhetoric by governmental leaders is any indication of what civil society cares about, the outlook for prison progress looks bleak.

How do we ensure that these minimum rules will be followed? While the Mandela Rules do call for a more humane treatment of prisoners, and require a more accepting environment and safer prison standards, which is certainly wonderful, they should not be praised as a revolutionary feat. What would be revolutionary is if the United States and other countries would actually adopt these rules in practice rather than merely going through the motions.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prisons Won’t Get Better Just Because We’ve Signed Another Document appeared first on Law Street.

How do Millennials help America build a better future? With over 1,200 business-casual-clad young activists and leaders packed into a chilly ballroom washed with blue stage lights, Generation Progress rallied Millennials in Washington, D.C. at its national summit on Thursday in an attempt to find out.

Now in its tenth year, Generation Progress’s “Make Progress” National Summit offers young people a day packed with well known speakers, inspiring dialogues, and stimulating buzzwords. With keynote speakers on the main stage and breakout sessions on topics ranging from diversity in public office to sexual assault prevention and student debt, attendees throughout the day were empowered through education on critical issues. Through communal support and prodigious encouragement from American leaders, the mood was alive with the goal of the day: creating progress.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren opened up the summit with an invigorating speech that earned dozens of standing ovations. Reverberating energy, Senator Warren spoke about college affordability, diversity, and social change inspired by activism. During one pause, an audience member yelled out “Run for president!” to which the Senator responded with a big grin and a chuckle, while everyone else jumped to their feet and erupted in approving cheers and applause. Her most applauded statement was that the progressive Supreme Court decisions over the past weeks were the direct result of young activists who dedicate their lives to fighting for social justice, stating, “We get what we fight for. Are you ready to get out there and fight?”

This morning I told young people at #MakeProgress: You get what you fight for. pic.twitter.com/JhwTtTzGBa

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 16, 2015

Michele Jawando, Vice President for Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress, later took the stage for a sobering panel on reforming the criminal justice system. She expressed her belief that young people putting pressure on their elected officials and demanding change is critical, and commended the Millennial generation for its high level of engagement with issues of importance, simultaneously striking down the notion that our generation is unengaged or uninformed.

After asking the audience to “stand up if you have participated in a march, a protest, or an online day of action in the past six months,” more than half of the room was standing. Jawando stated, “the only time Congress pays attention is when there is enough action that forces them to pay attention.” She praised those who partake in activist movements, particularly the sit-ins that forced members of Congress to face the consequences of adverse decisions, and encouraged all to become involved. The discussion then led to a breakdown of the 1994 crime bill that increased mandatory minimums for those sentenced to prison, created the “tough on crime” rhetoric that is only recently beginning to be critically questioned, and created a definition of criminals as young people of color. Jawando said that many current members of Congress were members in 1994 when this draconian bill was passed and that “some of those members don’t really want to concede, they don’t want to admit they were wrong.” She then expressed that while discussing reform is important, action needs to be immediate. “Yeah we are tweeting about it, we’re writing about it, we’re marching in the streets…But we still have to pass a bill y’all.”

Jawando made a few key remarks that resonated deeply with the young, social justice-minded audience; first, that there is a strong connection between the people who are elected and the changes we see in society. Second, that humanizing issues and telling personal stories of injustice is the most powerful way to inspire change. And third, that there is a dangerous misconception that people who are in prison always deserve to be there; Jawando stated that this mindset of “otherization,” or the “us versus them” mentality, will continue to act as a barrier to change until these divisions are broken.

.@MicheleJawando shares her personal experience on discrimination & the criminal justice system #MakeProgress pic.twitter.com/43TsktDXrl

— LCLAA (@LCLAA) July 16, 2015

My favorite breakout panel occurred in the afternoon: “It’s On US: Advocates Creating Cultural Change” featuring keynote speaker Tina Tchen. Tchen, Assistant to President Obama, Chief of Staff to Michelle Obama, and Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, gave an inspiring and informative speech on Generation Progress’s national campaign to prevent sexual assault. One in five women on college campuses will be sexually assaulted or experience some form of sexual violence by the time they graduate college. “We know, and you know, that this is a crisis on campuses,” Tchen said. The It’s On US movement on college campuses aims to fundamentally change the environment of rape culture and shift the conversation to be empowering for survivors and encouraging for those who have the ability to intervene in situations that could end in assault. “We are fundamentally on our way to a society that recognizes and supports survivors,” Tchen said over snaps and applause. Panelists encouraged students to join or start It’s On US on their respective college campuses, and to take the pledge to end sexual assault.

"It's not just about stopping sexual assault on campus. That is just the start."-Tina Tchen at #MakeProgress @ItsOnUs pic.twitter.com/apyLvEcAlR

— Chante Harris (@chante__harris) July 16, 2015

The final speaker of the day, and the most anticipated, was Vice President Joe Biden. All smartphones were whipped out to welcome the Vice President and most summit-goers found themselves on tiptoe in their chairs to catch a better glimpse of the esteemed guest. Mr. Biden gave a powerful, insightful, but occasionally lighthearted speech, that felt much more like sitting down for an after-dinner conversation with an affectionate grandfather than an address by the Vice President. The VP touched on a range of topics, from the need to create affordable education, to climate change, to closing the expanding wage gap in the country. He even called on politicians to resist donations from millionaires and billionaires to fund their primary election campaigns, potentially an allusion to Senator Bernie Sanders who also cares deeply and advocates against the privatization of political donations.

"If you could do only 1 thing to increase equality what would it be?" @VP asks the #MakeProgress crowd. "Get private money out of politics"

— Generation Progress (@genprogress) July 16, 2015

The Vice President expressed his sincere appreciation and confidence in the Millennial generation, stating “There’s more reason today than ever before to be idealistic, optimistic, tenacious, passionate, and principled.” The most prominent message Mr. Biden delivered during his time on stage was that passion, just like the passion in the room before him, is what generates social change and makes progress.

"I applaud your passion. Never apologize for it. Never explain it away." @JoeBiden at @genprogress #MakeProgress pic.twitter.com/T5cowdiCLT

— Emily Dalgo (@DalgoEmily) July 16, 2015

Generation Progress’s Make Progress National Summit concluded with a slew of selfies with Joe Biden and a ballroom full of young activists stepping back into the D.C. sun with newfound inspiration and admiration for the causes they believe in. The summit, though only one day long, has the power and the potential to ignite young minds for years to come. Make Progress is proof that Millennials do care about the issues. They are engaged, they’re active, and they’re ready to fight. Outside, the only audible sound was of heels clicking and dress shoes clacking on the sidewalks as the attendees trickled out of the summit. But one sound still echoed in everyone minds: applause and cheers for change, for action, and for progress.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Generation Progress Encourages Millennials to “Make Progress” appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama granted clemency to 46 federal prisoners convicted of nonviolent drug offenses on Monday, 14 of whom faced life sentences. This move comes amid a broader push for prison reform, in an attempt to fix issues like overcrowding and disparate minority prison populations–especially for nonviolent drug offenses. In a political atmosphere that is too often hyper-ideological and unproductive, criminal justice reform appears to be one arena where real change is happening.

President Obama has granted clemency to prisoners in the past, especially for drug-related offenses, and has made prison reform a sticking point of his presidency. Last year, the Department of Justice announced a new initiative that allows drug offenders to petition for a sentence reduction or clemency–an attempt to reflect modern sentencing practices. With the latest 46, Obama raises the total number of commutations during his presidency to 89. While some criticize Obama for not acting strongly enough on this issue, he has now granted the most commutations in the modern era. The inmates, who will be released by mid-November, are among more than 30,000 who have applied for clemency since the new initiative. Although very few of these cases will reach the President’s desk, the recent commutations mark an important step symbolically. As he approaches the last year of his presidency, President Obama’s executive actions have the power to shape the future of these issues.

There are a number of problems with the justice system that activists and politicians are currently working to address. The United States has an incarceration rate of  700 per 100,000 citizens, the highest of any nation including authoritarian countries like Russia and Cuba. Among the federal prison population, over half are serving for drug-related offenses and nearly three-fourths are nonviolent offenders with no history of violence. There is also a large racial disparity, with Blacks and Hispanics disproportionately represented in American prisons. A 2005 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found some troubling trends in recidivism. About two-thirds of released prisoners were arrested again within three years and three-quarters were arrested within five years.

President Obama is not the only one addressing criminal justice reform, as it is an issue that has generated strong bipartisan support. In 2014, the Justice Department reported the first decline in the federal prison population in 34 years. Former Attorney General Eric Holder attributed this change to new initiatives intended to improve sentencing fairness. Last year, the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to reduce the penalties for most drug crimes and later made that change apply retroactively. High profile cases also highlight the need for reform, including that of Kalief Browder, a man who committed suicide after being wrongfully imprisoned for six years at Riker’s Island. As this issue rises into the public light, more and more people are calling for substantive reform.

In a political climate that is increasingly partisan, it often feels like there is no common ground that would allow for significant change. Prison reform is one issue with which Republicans and Democrats can cooperate and help people get their lives back, help prevent people from throwing their lives away, and save money that shouldn’t be spent on nonviolent criminals in the first place. In granting these prisoners clemency, President Obama sends a powerful message about his willingness to lead on this issue.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Clemencies Mark Symbolic Push for Prison Reform appeared first on Law Street.

This Thursday, President Obama will become the first sitting president to visit a federal prison. He is scheduled to visit with inmates and officials at the El Reno Federal Correction Institute near Oklahoma City. This is just the latest of many steps taken by the Obama administration in an attempt to reform the American prison system.

At the prison, Obama will also conduct an interview with VICE that will be a part of a documentary airing this fall on HBO focusing on America’s broken criminal justice system. The Federal Bureau of Prisons website confirms that El Reno is a medium security federal correctional institution, housing more than 1,000 inmates. Another 248 inmates reside at an adjacent minimum-security camp.

The visit is a part of a week focusing on criminal justice reform, beginning with a speech on Tuesday for the NAACP’s annual convention in Philadelphia. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that Obama will:

Outline the unfairness in much of our criminal justice system, highlight bipartisan ideas for reform, and lay out his own ideas to make our justice system fairer, smarter, and more cost-effective while keeping the American people safe and secure.

Obama has a long history of speaking out about prison system reform. The White House has posted a video of conversation between the president and David Simon, writer of the HBO television show, “The Wire,” in which Obama discusses the massive trend toward incarceration, for even nonviolent drug offenders, which began in the 1990s. He said:

Folks go in at great expense to the state, many times trained to become more hardened criminals while in prison, [and] come out and are basically unemployable.

In Obama’s State of the Union Speech in January, he highlighted criminal justice reform, connecting it to high profile clashes between law enforcement and minority communities.

While there have been years of discussion on the issue, we are just now really starting to see a change With 2.3 million Americans behind bars, the United States has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Despite containing less than five percent of the world’s population, the United States incarcerates nearly a quarter of the world’s prisoners. With a criminal justice system that is marred by racial and class based disparities, these instances of inequality are visible at every step of the criminal process. They often lead to wrongful convictions and inconsistent sentencing that disproportionately affect people of color and low-income individuals. There are also many allegations of racial profiling, which specifically targets minority individuals of color. Finally, the criminal justice system has massive hidden economic and societal costs that reverberate throughout society, affecting us all.

The Executive isn’t the only branch getting in on criminal justice reform. The House has also introduced a new bipartisan bill–the SAFE Justice Act–proposing to reduce the United States prison population, while also cutting crime and saving money. The bill proposes a broad set of reforms to the U.S. justice system, including increasing the use of sentencing alternatives such as probation of certain non-violent offenders; encouraging judicial districts to operate mental health, veteran and other problem-solving courts; and prioritizing prison space for violent and “career” criminals by expanding the release of geriatric and terminally ill offenders. It would also expand earned-time policies to inmates who participate in programs to reduce their recidivism rates, introduce mental health and de-escalation training programs for prison staff, and require performance-based contracting for halfway houses, among other reforms.

The SAFE Justice Act has a lot of potential, as does Obama’s push for reform. But there’s so much more to be done, including a need to change the way we perceive felons. They are so quickly written off as criminals, murderers, or drains on society. They are separated from the rest of society as soon as they are released. So many are falsely convicted or just wait in prisons for months or years before they can even receive a trial. Changes to the system don’t just involve policies–they involve redefining how we treat prisoners as well. So while Obama is taking steps in the right direction by visiting prisons and speaking out about equality, there remains a long road ahead.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Continues to Push for Criminal Justice Reform appeared first on Law Street.

Legal fanfiction, huh?

Now, by that, I don’t mean fanfiction that stringently follows all copyright rules. If you’re looking for pieces on that copyright jazz, tune into this. Or this. (And I know you’re interested. Because all of us fan fic writers are suitably convinced that actual show writers will find our fics and sue us personally, because, well, we write their characters better than they do. And… we do.)

But this is not the kind of legal fanfiction I’m thinking of at the moment.

Right now, I’m thinking of what would happen if we all tried to rewrite the criminal justice system in the ways that we rewrite our favorite shows, books, and comics.

What would fanfiction of the criminal justice system be like? (Or, rather, non-fanfiction, perhaps, because even a cursory understanding of this country leaves me to ask: how could anyone possibly be a fan of the criminal justice system?)

What if we rewrote the legal system, and made it operate however we, as imaginative writers, wish it to be? How would we re-write our legal system if we were writing fiction if we didn’t feel the need to justify ourselves about how “realistic” an idea is at every turn? If we just… imagined?

How would we re-craft the Constitution; would there be a Constitution? Probably not. So the fundamental basis of the document (and this country) was not the “right” to own property (aka, you know, enslaved peoples, on land that we committed genocide to gain access to)?

AU (for those of us who don’t speak fanfiction, that means “Alternate Universe”) — in which anti-racist universal design rather than racist profit-seeking is the main ethos of urban planning: would Baltimore have to be rising right now?

The more creative ways in which we allow ourselves to imagine the legal system, the more fuel with which we can head off to community organizing and protests.

We can write legal fanfiction–and so many of us do, every day–as real-life alternatives to criminal justice: not fan fictions per se, but real political brainstormings about the (un)limits of what we can accomplish. How can we accomplish prison abolition now? What immediate alternatives would need to be arranged? How could that happen?

What alternatives have we to the white supremacist world order now? Some legal (non)fanfiction–like those liberatory pieces linked to above, a form of activism all its own–might help us out.

Fanfiction. Fanfiction. Fanfiction that, like other forms of fiction, can help craft a better world.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Forget Harry Potter. THIS is the Fanfiction You Should Be Writing appeared first on Law Street.

Across the United States, it is estimated that more than 61,000 youth are incarcerated each night, and more than 65 percent of these young people are youth of color. The overwhelming majority, 75 percent, are incarcerated for non-violent offenses.

The U.S. incarcerates youth at vastly higher rates than any other country in a world. Given that these incarcerated youth die from suicide at a rate of two to three times higher than the non-incarcerated youth population, there is no shortage of controversies surrounding the jailing of youth.

Read on to learn about the different controversies surrounding the incarceration of juveniles in the American justice system.

Death in Prison Without a Jury: An Overview of Youth Incarceration

Though all 50 states and the District of Columbia have defined legal differences between adults and youth who are accused of committing crimes, different states have different standards and definitions for what age someone has to be in order to be prosecuted as a juvenile. Additionally, there are many provisions that allow for certain juveniles to be prosecuted as adults, even if they are technically considered to be juveniles.

For some youth, this can be seen as an initial advantage: juveniles accused of crimes are not entitled to a trial by jury in light of a 1971 Supreme Court decision. Instead, youth are sentenced at the discretion of judges. But this exposes youth to tremendous vulnerability at the hands of judges who are accused of making decisions on the basis of race, even if it’s unconsciously. As Judge LaDoris Cordell argues, regarding the grossly disproportionate number of youth of color in the juvenile justice system:

What is hard is that if you go up to your average juvenile court judge, and that judge is the one who sends these kids off–we’re the ones ultimately responsible for these statistics–that judge will look you dead in the eye and say, “I’m not unfair, I’m not racist, I’m not prejudiced. I do the best I can.” And that judge is telling you the truth. . . . But what is at play here in most cases? I’m not saying there aren’t those judges who are so prejudiced and so racist; there are those. But I think, in the main, most are not. But I think what happens is that stereotypes are so embedded in the psyche of human beings, that those stereotypes come to play. So that when a young black kid comes into court before a white male judge, who perhaps doesn’t have any experience dealing with young black males… a mindset comes up in that judge’s head… Assumptions get made. . . . I think, in the main, that’s what happens, and I think that’s what accounts for those statistics. . . .

However, the risks of being tried in adult courts are also astronomical: approximately 2,500 youth are currently enduring life in prison without parole for crimes committed when they were children. In addition, youth are likely to experience extreme abuse in adult prisons. According to the Equal Justice Initiative, “Children are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted in adult prisons than in juvenile facilities and face increased risk of suicide.”

Additionally, according to Human Rights Watch, while one out of every eight black youths who are convicted of killing someone are sentenced to life in prison, only one out of every 13 white youths convicted of killing someone are sentenced to life in prison.

In New York and North Carolina, this fate is particularly dangerous for youth: these are the only two states that try 16 and 17-year-old young people as adults. In both of these states, the age of adult criminal responsibility is 16, so judges must automatically treat these youth as adults. The prosecution of 16 year olds as adults–and their subsequent processing through the adult, rather than juvenile, system of incarceration–occurs in New York automatically, regardless of the severity of the accused crime. This means that every year, over 200,000 youth under the age of 18 in the U.S. are tried, prosecuted, and incarcerated as adults.

Even young people who are incarcerated as juveniles, however, experience tremendous hardship within the system. In addition to some debilitating and abusive conditions, youth in the juvenile justice system, whether currently incarcerated or on probation, are required to pay money to the courts for their own incarceration and probation. Youth on probation are responsible for payments such as supervisory fees, as well as fees for staying in juvenile hall while awaiting placement in group homes.

The School-to-Prison Pipeline

As schools are militarized across the country–with increased police presence and military training for the police placed in some of our schools–the number of students being funneled from schools into the juvenile justice system is correspondingly increasing. Overall, a 38 percent increase in law enforcement presence in schools between 1997 and 2007 is intimately related to 5 times more students being arrested in schools.

Most of these youths–even those who are not incarcerated extensively after their arrest–lose out on further educational opportunities due to schools’ zero tolerance policies. Zero tolerance policies in schools, which mandate harsh punishments for first-time (and often minor) offenses, emerged from zero tolerance approaches to President George H.W. Bush’s “war on drugs.” According to Professor Nancy A. Heitzeg, sociology instructor and the Program Director of the Critical Studies of Race/Ethnicity program at St. Catherine University, zero tolerance policies in schools are directly related to the funneling of students from schools into prisons:

While the school to prison pipeline is facilitated by a number of trends in education, it is most directly attributable to the expansion of zero tolerance policies. These policies have no measurable impact on school safety, but are associated with a number of negative effects‖ racially disproportionality, increased suspensions and expulsions, elevated drop-out rates, and multiple legal issues related to due process.

By criminalizing “bad behavior” among children in schools instead of supporting students who are in need, zero tolerance policies have, according to Washington Times reporter Nikki Krug, “produced unnecessary student suspensions for even the slightest violations of conduct, leading to higher risk of failing, dropping out and criminal prosecution for minors.” These higher drop-out rates make recidivism and further involvement in both the juvenile and adult justice systems much more likely, with 70 precent of students who become involved with the juvenile justice system dropping out of school entirely.

Young People in Solitary Confinement

Once involved in the juvenile justice system, many youths find themselves devastated by the impacts of solitary confinement. While New York has recently stated that it will end the solitary confinement of youth and those who are pregnant, the punishment is still a reality for many incarcerated youth elsewhere.

Locked in total isolation in small cells for 23 hours a day, children under the age of 18 are locked in solitary for days, weeks, and months on end across the United States every day. The mental health consequences of youth being locked in solitary are even more extreme than they are for adults. The Attorney General’s office has reported, for example, that half of youths who kill themselves while incarcerated do so while they are in solitary. Of those who are not in solitary at the time of their death, 62 percent had endured solitary confinement before.

The youths who do survive solitary are often plagued by the trauma they endure for years to come. In fact, Juan E. Méndez, a United Nations expert on torture, has argued that solitary confinement, especially when practiced on children under 18, amounts to torture.

Juvenile Justice and Racial Justice

According to the National Juvenile Justice Network, youth of color are disproportionately targeted by the juvenile justice system: “In every juvenile offense category—person, property, drug, and public order—youth of color receive harsher sentences and fewer services than white youth who have committed the same category of offenses.” This means that even though white youth commit the same crimes as youth of color, youth of color are criminalized and receive harsher sentences while white youth are more likely to get community service rather than incarceration.

Among these youth of color who are targeted by the juvenile justice system, a great number identify as LGBT. According to the Center for American Progress, around 300,000 LGBT youth are arrested and detained each year in the U.S., and approximately 60 percent of these youth are black and Latina. These youth are much more likely than non-LGBT peers to be targeted for abuse once incarcerated.

Juvenile Injustice?

Though issues abound in the juvenile justice system, many individuals and organizations are committed to making changes to the system. While efforts to reform and overhaul the juvenile justice system are underway, it is clear that youth who have gone through the juvenile justice system are taking the lead in efforts to ensure that justice, rather than injustice, is served. Until these problems are solved, the youth justice system may continue to be unjust.

Resources

Annie E. Casey Foundation: A Collection of Juvenile Justice Resources

Human Rights Watch: The Rest of Their Lives

Human Rights Watch: Growing Up Locked Down

American Civil Liberties Union: Stop Solitary

Center for American Progress: The Unfair Criminalization of Gay and Transgender Youth

PBS: Is the System Racially Biased?

Equal Justice Initiative: Children in Prison

Colorlines: Paying to Get Locked Up

Colorlines: More Police in Schools Means More Students Arrested

Advancement Project: Momentum Grows Against Zero Tolerance Discipline and High-Stakes Testing

NOLO: Do Juveniles Have a Right to Trial by Jury?

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Juvenile Justice System: Inequality and Unjust Treatment appeared first on Law Street.

On September 13 2014, 18-year-old University of Virginia student Hannah Graham went missing, and recently authorities arrested and charged 32-year-old Jesse L. Matthew Jr. in relation to the incident. His current charge is described as abduction with intent to defile in the case of Graham. (Intent to defile meaning he intended to sexually assault the victim.) Matthew is currently being held without bond and is scheduled for a hearing in early December. Unfortunately, after two weeks of searching, Graham has still not been found, but authorities are doing all they can to locate her.

This case is a tragedy and my heart goes out to Graham’s family and friends. One of the hardest things to understand in this case is recently surfaced reports alleging that Matthew has a history of sexual assault accusations, none of which ended in conviction. According to The Washington Post,

The alleged assaults occurred within an 11-month span from 2002 to 2003 as Jesse L. “LJ” Matthew Jr. moved from Liberty University in Lynchburg to Christopher Newport University in Newport News. Police investigated each report, but neither resulted in a criminal case, according to the Lynchburg prosecutor and a review of online court records in Newport News.

If the allegations of these cases from over a decade ago are true, and with minimal knowledge of the reasoning surrounding the dropped charges, it is hard not to wonder why Matthew got away with such crimes not once, but twice before harming another innocent young girl? These alleged incidents occurred while Matthew was a student attending university, and although legislation and public discourse surrounding campus sexual assault has been under the miscroscope in recent months, I cannot help but wonder how we can act to prevent this loophole?

This case is reminiscent of another sexual assault case with similar characteristics.  In 1996 Amie Zyla, an 8-year-old girl, was sexually molested and victimized by family friend Joshua Wade who was 14 years old at the time. Wade was adjudicated for a misdemeanor in juvenile court. Nine years later, Wade was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for a series of sexual molestation cases involving the abuse of young children. This case caused huge controversy, and was the driving force behind expansions in the definition of sexual assault.

These two cases indicate the importance of people’s histories and backgrounds. We all make mistakes, and sometimes it is wrong for our privacy to be intruded upon, but with something like sexual assault cases — regardless of whether there has been a conviction — something about this needs to be mentioned. It doesn’t take a lot of common sense to understand how hard it can be to convict a perpetrator of sexual assault. There is often a lack of witnesses on top of fear and upset from the victim; with a case dependent on DNA testing, the odds are very slim. Just because cases may not be tried in court — like Matthew’s two alleged college incidents — it does not mean that they didn’t happen and are not warning signs for things to come.

The media has spent its energy publicizing Matthew’s past. This runs a risk of setting off stricter registration laws for sexual offenders, which have proven to do more harm than good. By broadcasting the background of a perpetrator who was in society seemingly living normally until his arrest for the disappearance of a young girl, I question whether the media is supporting the need to find Graham and bring her home safely, or whether it is striking the ‘stranger danger’ rape myth back into society?

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Case of Hannah Graham and the Myth of Stranger Danger appeared first on Law Street.

Right on the heels of  the Ray Rice domestic violence incident, NFL star Adrian Peterson was charged with negligent injury to a child. Known for being the best running back for the Minnesota Vikings, Peterson allegedly punished his 4-year-old son by whipping him with a tree branch, leaving cuts and bruises on the boy’s legs, backs, buttocks, hand and scrotum.

This subject is something I am really passionate about, and I was in absolute shock when Peterson gave a statement to the police following the incident claiming he felt confident in his actions, and is thankful for what spanking has done to him in his life. Each parent is responsible for choosing the way he or she disciplines his or her child, but if we start to say spanking is acceptable, how will we ever be able to set boundaries and limits? In typical NFL handling of these cases, Peterson was suspended from a game and no further action is being taken until the official police investigation is complete.

Last week I referenced the punishment for the father of a child who died as a result of being left in a hot car. That father was charged with murder. In the case of Adrian Peterson, I ask you what would happen if Peterson gave one more hit as opposed to the 10-15 lashes his poor child received, and that final hit resulted in the child’s death? Would he be let off because he didn’t intend to hurt the child? Would it be accepted like it is now, because that’s the way he grew up and spanking does “good”? I find it appalling that excuses are being made to justify what allows parents to discipline their children in this way.

Legislation is proposed all the time to stop acts of abuse toward children, and yet this incident has the potential to make parents think it’s OK to discipline their children in this way. I do not doubt that Peterson is telling the truth when he claims his intentions were harmless, but I do doubt that he feels any kind of remorse or is aware that his actions were wrong. In 2013, Peterson’s other two-year-old son was killed by his ex-girlfriend’s partner. Although Peterson had only found out about the child three months prior to his tragic death, one would have thought it would make him change his own actions.

All it takes is one hit in the wrong area, or with a certain amount of force, to cause serious harm and fall under the realm of child abuse. NFL players have the responsibility not only to be great athletes but also to be good role models. With the influx of recent incidents involving NFL players and their mistreatment of the law, I worry what effect this will have on the general public. Yes people make mistakes, yes people can change, but we should not be encouraging this behavior by making excuses. Each article I read about Rice and Peterson is drenched in excuse after excuse, each justifying the simple fact that these acts are wrong. In my opinion, if these acts of abuse were done by anyone else not in the public eye, I can guarantee the punishment would be a lot different.

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post There Is No Excuse for Child Abuse, Not Even for Adrian Peterson appeared first on Law Street.

Justin Ross Harris was indicted on September 4 by a grand jury on eight counts for the murder of his 22-month-old son, who was left in a hot car. The public anxiously waited for this verdict after Harris became public enemy number one after the incident in June. Cobb County District Attorney Vic Reynolds stated that he will decide over the next three weeks whether to seek a mandatory life sentence or the death penalty in this case. If Reynolds does seek the death penalty, it will be for the malice murder charge, which alleges that Harris, who has claimed his son’s death was an accident, premeditated the child’s killing.

There has been much debate over the outcome and potential sentence of punishment that Mr. Harris will receive. Some believe these charges are way too severe, considering there may still be a possibility that the death of Harris’ young son was in fact an accident. In my opinion, this all comes down to just how ethical the death penalty really is? The death of a 22-month-old baby is tragic, and what is even more heartbreaking is that this seems to be becoming the norm. I was reading the news today, and several newspapers have created sections in which ‘hot car baby deaths’ are featured. It is clear that enforcing the death penalty as a deterrent just does not work.

In the twenty-first century, I honestly believe if we were to live by the saying ‘an eye for an eye’ we would be living in chaos. In order to lead by example, as a country that punishes individuals who commit heinous crimes, we should rise above just killing them off by an injection. It costs more money to keep an individual on death row than it does to place them in prison on a life sentence. An eye for an eye means that equal amount of suffering should be received, and I ask you, do you really think a quick lethal injection can compare to some of the horrific murders and rapes these victims suffer? Would it not make more sense to sentence these individuals to life sentences in prison, forcing them to acknowledge what they have done, while being punished by depriving them of any normal life they once had? What I think a lot of people fail to understand is that although these individuals can be sentenced to death row, they will spend years awaiting their actual death while money is wasted on them sitting in a cell.

With ironic timing, after three decades on death row, this week 50-year-old Henry McCollum and his brother were released from prison in North Carolina due to DNA evidence after serving a sentence for the rape and murder of a female in 1983. As expected, social media jumped at the chance to voice their opinions on this case, and the death penalty in general. Many believe that if someone commits such a heinous crime they should also suffer, whereas others argue that killing them via the death penalty is the easy way out. I have done a lot of research in the use of DNA to exonerate individuals. The Innocence Project is an organization that dedicates itself to cases exactly like this in the hope of overturning wrongful convictions. The flaw with the death penalty is the fact that in most cases, with an absence of evidence or lack of investigative material, it is close to impossible to be 100 percent sure of conviction. The risk that an individual can be sentenced to death, and then be proven innocent is way too high to warrant any ethical justification for this form of punishment.

As a country that bases itself on a constitution that protects the rights of the people and forbids cruel and unusual punishment, I struggle to see how sentencing someone to die by lethal injection for a crime that cannot be supported with 100 percent guaranteed proof is not in itself a contradiction of what we stand for. By sentencing Harris to death, I do not see how that can compare to the suffering of a young baby in a hot car. It is controversial to compare the suffering of ways to die for both the victim and the perpetrator, but I actually think the death penalty can sometimes be an easy way out.

Justice for victims who have lost their lives due to crime demands that their perpetrators be punished and made to understand and take responsibility for their actions. I am still unsure about where I stand in terms of rehabilitation for these types of criminals, but I genuinely feel like (and for this you can blame my criminology background and psycho analytic personality) if we do not try to understand why these things happen and why people do the things they do, we will not be able to prevent any harm done to us in the future, and more importantly to the next generation that will live in this exact same era of punishment.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Luigi Caterino via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Death Penalty is the Easy Way Out appeared first on Law Street.

According to a statement released by the Department of Defense on August 27, 2014, United States Army General Officer Michael T. Harrison was forced to retire recently with a reduced rank after being found to have mishandled reports of sexual assault. As I read the article published by The New York Times, I was expecting to find that some form of criminal action had also been taken and that there would be some recognition of sympathy for those victims whose cases had been mishandled. Instead, the consequences of this general’s actions were to retire as a one star general, as opposed to a two star. No criminal action was taken, and no justice to the victims was given.

If you have seen the eye-opening documentary ‘The Invisible War,’ then you know that it raised awareness for the appalling number of victims who are involved in sexual assaults in military settings, but also that it spurred legislation ensuring investigations of abuse were handled efficiently, and justice was given to the victims. As can be seen with Harrison’s case, these incidents are still occurring and as a woman myself, I still do not feel like enough is being done.

Susan Brownmiller, an American journalist, describes sexual assault in military settings as an unfortunate but inevitable by-product of the necessary game called war. Quite frankly, the punishment Harrison received is nothing short of a joke. After the amendment of federal policies regarding sexual assault in the military two years ago, I question Congress as to why this is still happening? This game we call ‘sexual assault in war’ is unacceptable. According to “The Invisible War,”

‘Since 2006, more than 95,000 service members have been sexually assaulted in the U.S. military. More than 86 percent of service members do not report their assault, and less than five percent of all sexual assaults are put forward for prosecution, with less than a third of those cases resulting in imprisonment.’

These figures should be enough to not only change punishment for the mishandling of reports of sexual assault, but to help victims come forward and receive justice for their traumatic experiences. As of 2014, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, federal law now defines Military Sexual Trauma (MST) as one of the most frequent diagnoses given to veterans of warfare. If we know that so many individuals suffer from such traumatic experiences, why isn’t policy being changed? Even more importantly, why aren’t those who are meant to protect us doing their jobs properly?

Each military force dominates the way reports and investigations of assault are handled. This ‘in house’ shambles of a system is essentially allowing officials to get away with their own wrongdoings. We are allowing individuals to commit acts without fear of punishment or consequence. In order to lower the rates of sexual assault in the military, the focus needs to be on controlling the environment, and providing an alternative system for report of misconduct. I am no expert in changing legislation, and I am no intellectual genius on the makings of policy, but I am certainly no fool to being aware that victims are suffering, and legislators need to wake up and realize that this type of consequence is normalizing military sexual assaults.

Our common coping mechanism for crime is imposing laws to regulate punishment to those who inflict pain and suffering. By imposing taking someone’s gold sparkly badge away and giving him or her a silver sparkly one instead because they essentially ignored someone’s suffering, is unacceptable. Sexual assault and abuse is not normal, regardless of the situation, regardless of the setting, and regardless of the perpetrator. In order to enable victims to report their abusers, and in order to protect future men and women from the pain and suffering so many veterans go through, something needs to change!

Now more than ever, I cannot wrap my head around the fact that our same country who is fighting to protect us from terrorism, our country who is fighting for the rights of the thousands of innocent individuals losing their lives in the Middle East, can also be the same country that contains individuals being sexually violated and then silenced by the same exact people who are meant to protect us.

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Military Sexual Assault Remains a Major National Embarrassment appeared first on Law Street.

In the aftermath of the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri and the controversy over the way in which the police department has dealt with the backlash, accusations of officials on a ‘power trip’ are incredibly poignant. According to Ferguson residents interviewed by CNN, “there’s been friction for years with the overwhelmingly white police department.” This statement is made by both African-American and white members of the community.

Courtesy of Light Brigading via Flickr

In the predominantly African-American town, these individuals are highly over-represented in crime statistics. ‘They accounted for 93 percent of arrests after traffic stops, 92 percent of searches and 86 percent of traffic stops.’ Although it is frankly impossible to hide from the racially discriminatory acts that are taking place, I ask why it has taken such a tragic event to acknowledge such wrongdoing? This idea that power can influence the way people act is not uncommon. Social experiments like the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, the soldiers involved in the leaking of the Abu Ghraib photos, and the recent controversies surrounding the invisible war of sexual assault in the military, are just some examples of how power has an effect on producing and allowing crime to occur.

It is time we stop allowing justifications and rationalizations as reasons why individuals feel they can abuse their power. We blame the police officers for abusing their power with excessive force, but what about those in the riots who took advantage of a tragic situation by looting businesses? What about the thousands of individuals who took to Twitter to verbally abuse and criticize individuals because of their race, or because of their involvement in the incident? To say the issue is the hypocrisy of a country built upon equality and democracy is treating the problem, but ignoring those actions that make us revert back to the Civil Rights era, and back to an age when segregation was mandatory, which is the cause.

In the 21st century we have produced a generation so involved in the use of social media to express their opinions, and so involved in the right to voice our opinions, that we are in a sense our own worst enemies. Instead of working alongside law enforcement to protect our country, we are rebelling; instead of fighting the war against racial discrimination, we are fueling it; instead of maintaining the right to have privacy, we are highlighting more reasons to invade it. One of the first pictures of the fatally shot Michael Brown was posted to Twitter by a bystander before any official evidence was given to the police.

In the aftermath of Ferguson, it was announced that “police departments and their equipment suppliers are outfitting their officers with on-body cameras that promise to eliminate the photographic void we saw in Ferguson.” These cameras will be worn by officers during their shifts and will record all of their encounters with any member of the public they interact with. These videos at the end of each shift are then placed in a vault online, where they will only be examined during legal proceedings.

I don’t know about you, but I interact with police officers daily during my lunch break. I am 90 percent sure it is to do with my British accent and their boredom, but I still don’t know how comfortable I would feel knowing they may have a camera turned on recording me buying my lunch. What about those days that I decide it’s a good idea to buy bars of chocolate and bags of chips, if anything they are uncovering my unhealthy habits!

Courtesy of Mark Kirchner via Flickr

As expected with any new regulation, there are no national regulations on how the cameras will be used, or when they will be turned on and off. This is precisely one of the main problems with treating the problem and ignoring the cause. How to you trust an officer is going to keep the camera on for the duration of his shift? How do you rely on technology to take away the ‘power trip’ mentality? The answer: you cannot.

What makes this whole argument over the abuse of power even more valid is the corruption of relationships within the police force. There needs to be some kind of a change to monitor the performance of corrupt officials to ensure that the public can trust in those who are meant to protect them. The backlash from the community in Ferguson has come about from years of distrust in their law enforcement as protectors, and adding video cameras to police officers’ chests is not going to change that.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Matt Katzenberger via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime of Power: Treating the Problem in Ferguson and Ignoring the Cause appeared first on Law Street.

Attorney General Eric Holder shined a spotlight on state voting laws this week when he spoke out against voting bans for felons. The laws vary across states, with the harshest in Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia where felons are banned from voting for life, with the exception of individual permissions granted by the governor. Other states require ex-convicts to abide by a waiting period prior to regaining the vote, and others still have long and complicated re-registration procedures. To prove the severity of these laws, Holder pointed to Florida where anti-felon suffrage regulations ban 10 percent of the citizens from voting.

While a significant portion of the country is barred from voting, even after they finish their time in prison, these laws also disproportionately affect minorities. African-Americans encompass a third of the approximately 5.8 million Americans who are barred from exercising their voting rights. Holder emphasized the large number of minorities affected by these restrictive laws, stating that they are remnants of the discriminatory policies enacted after the Civil War in order to keep minorities from going to the polls. And unfortunately their efforts were successful: 1 in 13 African-Americans are disenfranchised due to anti-felon voting bans.

Due to these, and other, restrictive policies, any attempt to protect minority voting rights is important, especially after key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were declared unconstitutional in a 2013 Supreme Court Ruling. The decision deemed Section 4 unconstitutional, which determined states with histories of voting discrimination would have to submit any changes to their voting laws to be pre-approved by the Attorney General. Without the coverage formula, states are able to pass discriminatory voting laws and the federal government cannot prevent the laws from going into effect.

In this context, the Voting Rights Act’s power is minimized, and any legislation that could help restore some minority voting rights would be welcome. Senator Rand Paul is currently drafting a bill that, if passed by Congress, would give many felons the right to vote in federal elections. However, Paul’s bill still contains restrictions: the proposed legislation restores the vote specifically to non-violent felons, which is a compromise with other legislators who are hesitant to restore these rights in the first place.

Holder also noted that the laws preventing ex-convicts from voting only enhances the stereotype and social stigma surrounding felons. Laws affecting felons, such as these restrictive voting ban, increase the feeling of separation from the rest of the community and increase the likelihood that felons will commit further crimes. Treating ex-convicts as second-class citizens is neither the proper nor the most successful way to reintegrate them into their communities.

These laws teach others that there are no second chances in American justice: once a convict, always a convict. Some may think that this is a good message to send, and that such laws could dissuade citizens from committing crimes in the first place. However, this philosophy mistakenly precludes the possibility that once felons finish their time, they could serve some benefit to the community. If societal attitudes continue to influence felons to go back to jail, states miss out on the potential for these people’s efforts to contribute to the workforce and other communal needs. By getting rid of some of the restrictive laws on felons after they return to normal life, they can better return as contributing citizens.

While Mr. Holder has no authority to enact changes to the laws himself, congressmen and state legislatures should listen up.

[Washington Post] [New York Times] [SCOTUS Blog] [The Hill] [Politico]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Lobo via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Holder Speaks Out Against Felon Voting Ban appeared first on Law Street.