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

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

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

In an interview with Bustle, Booker said:

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

A new report authored by Law School Transparency, a Georgia-based non-profit, is shedding light on the current failures of law schools, and U.S. senators are taking notice. In a unique show of bipartisanship, senators from both parties criticized American law schools last week for leaving law school graduates with significant debt but few job prospects.

The report attempted to determine if law schools are admitting students who are not prepared for bar passage or legal jobs. Law School Transparency explained the motivation for its study, stating:

We started with a basic observation. As long as the bar exam guards entrance to the legal profession, law schools should be held accountable for enrolling students who face significant risk of not passing that exam. Failing to earn a license does not eliminate all of the value law schools provide, but that failure significantly decreases the value of a law degree for a typical graduate. Fewer students would undertake three years of law school and significant debt without the prospect of practicing law.

The study came to the conclusion that there were 74 schools that in 2014 admitted at least 25 percent “at-risk” students, and 37 of those schools admitted at least 50 percent at-risk students. Given that there are only 206 ABA accredited law schools, 74 is a pretty hefty number. As defined by Law School Transparency, at-risk students are those who risk failing the bar upon graduation. Law School Transparency also came to the conclusion that for-profit law schools admit huge numbers of at-risk students, particularly the law schools operated by InfiLaw, a company that has consistently been accused of being predatory.

In reaction to this report, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote about the need to change the law school system. He stated: “We need to move away from a system that results in too many law school graduates twisting in the wind.” Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) spoke against for-profit law schools specifically, saying: “Now that we’ve taken the cap off what you can borrow for graduate courses, they have decided they are going to just charge to the heavens in terms of tuition for worthless, worthless law school degree.”

The backlash against law schools, particularly for-profit law schools, has been in the works for a while, but the attention from senators is a big new aspect. Maybe with this increased attention as a result of Law School Transparency’s report, we’ll finally see some changes.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post The Need for Law School Reform: Senators Join the Conversation appeared first on Law Street.

It’s absolutely no secret that college is incredibly expensive. One of the biggest complaints about college costs is how exorbitant the prices of textbooks have become. But, if Senators Al Franken (D-Minnesota), Angus King (I-Maine) and Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) get their way, that will be changing soon. The three legislators just introduced a bill, the Affordable College Textbook Act, that will make some online textbooks free and ultimately help to cut textbook costs for college students.

An average student in 2013 spent roughly $1200 on books per year, or up to $1250 if just private universities are taken into account. The prices of textbooks have skyrocketed in recent years–increasing an average of 82 percent in the last 10 years. There was an 812 percent price jump between 1978-2013. Experts attribute the shocking jump in prices to a lack of competition in the market, but these high costs are certainly detrimental to students. Roughly 70 percent of students have foregone certain textbooks in an attempt to save money, even if they realize that doing so may affect their academic success. It makes a lot of sense–if you’re desperate to save money, it’s a lot easier to forgo textbooks than housing or food.

The bill was introduced last week and, if successful, will provide grants to institutions of higher education. Those institutions will then work on programs for “open” textbooks–essentially textbooks that are online and freely accessible to students. Franken explained why this program would make sense based on his experience in Minnesota, stating:

At The University of Minnesota they’ve started a program of open sourced textbooks and that is basically paying professors there to write textbooks and put them online and so that professors and teachers can use and students can use that material instead of a $150 textbook.

Durbin also explained his motivations, citing similar success in Illinois:

As I said, we did this at the University of Illinois. Now there are certain rules of the game. If you’re going to have an open text book, it really has to be open, available to everyone, for the public, and what were finding is there’s a lot of good response to it and I think its catching on.

This, overall, is a smart suggestion that alleviates a real problem for students. A corresponding bill has been introduced in the House by Representative Rubén Hinojosa (D-Texas) and Jared Polis (D-Colorado). But, it has a very long way to go before it becomes anywhere near a viable piece of legislation, and given the current Congressional climate, probably doesn’t have a good shot of being enacted. That being said, as more pressure is exerted on our government to address the rising costs of college expenses, these kind of common sense and intelligent proposals will become key. While the bill may not make it through this time, be on the lookout for similar proposals at the state and federal level moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Will the Senate Take Action to Combat Rising Textbook Costs? appeared first on Law Street.

One of the markers of the current political climate is the animosity between President Obama and Congress. One of the manifestations of this climate can be seen in the fact that Loretta Lynch’s nomination for Attorney General has continued to languish in the halls of the Senate. If his remarks at a recent press conference are any indication, President Obama has had enough.

Loretta Lynch was nominated for the position of Attorney General nearly six months ago on November 8, 2014, but her nomination has been held up in the Senate since that point. There aren’t really any substantive reasons though, as no one seems to have any objections to Lynch’s qualifications for the job. While there are some concerns over her opinions on President Obama’s immigration reform, it seems like she’ll eventually be confirmed. It’s just a matter of when at this point.

The when is difficult though, as her nomination is being held up until a bill on human trafficking is settled, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Democrats, however, object to the bill because it contains a provision that prevents any money from the crime victims’ compensation fund from being spent on abortion services. Not only do many Senate Democrats object to the provision on moral grounds, they also claim that the Republicans surprised them by adding that provision to the bill without consulting them. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) stated,

I don’t know how that happened or who was the author of it. But the fact is, the bill that is on the floor today has a provision in it that we were told would not be included.

However, until this matter is solved, McConnell has said that they won’t vote on Lynch’s nomination. He’s framed it as a matter of priority–it’s important to finish a bill that will help trafficking victims before moving on to Lynch’s nomination. But it’s become a game of political chicken, and her nomination is caught right in the middle.

A sense of frustration and exasperation is exactly what the President expressed in a press conference Froday when speaking about the hold ups to the Lynch nomination. He emphatically stated,

Enough. Enough. Call Loretta Lynch for a vote, get her confirmed, let her do her job. This is embarrassing. There are times where the dysfunction in the Senate just goes too far. This is an example of it.

Regardless of Obama’s impassioned statements, it’s highly doubtful that his remarks will have any effect on the GOP Senators’ actions. Especially after the fights over the Iran deal and Obama’s immigration reform, there’s no real lost love between the executive and legislative branches. Lynch’s nomination will probably remain in limbo, at least for now.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Obama Lashes Out at Senate Over Loretta Lynch Confirmation Hold Up appeared first on Law Street.

The amount of prison time doled out by courts to perpetrators of non-violent, drug crimes are often excessively severe, sometimes more than 100 years in prison. In one particular case, a man was sentenced to a lifetime behind bars for possessing a bag with traces of cocaine. In another case, a man with no prior record is now serving a 25-year prison term for selling his pain pills to an undercover informant. These two individuals are just a few of the many serving years in prison due to harsh mandatory sentencing laws.

Keeping non violent criminals incarcerated for decades leads to overcrowded conditions and billions of taxpayer dollars. The mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses have led to prisons vastly exceeding their maximum capacity. The United States has seen a 500 percent increase in the number of inmates in federal custody over the last 30 years.

The goal of these harsh laws is to deter would-be criminals from committing crimes when they realize that they could spend for the rest of their lives behind bars. This plan sounds good in theory, but has failed in practice. Hosting them is not cheap; it costs around $50,000 to keep one person in prison for one year in California alone. Although America has only five percent of the world’s population, it hosts 25 percent of the world’s prison inmates.

The issue of overcrowded prisons is alarmingly prominent in the United States, as other countries have adopted more effective means of dealing with individuals who commit minor offenses. For example, in 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession, and since then many countries around the world have followed suit. Drug users in Portugal are also provided with therapy rather than prison sentences. Research commissioned by the Cato Institute found that in the five years after the start of decriminalization, illegal drug use by teenagers declined, the rate of HIV infections transmitted via drug use dropped, deaths related to hard drugs were cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction doubled.

Finally, the United States has realized the gravity of the situation and decided to take action. Recently, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin and Senator Mike Lee introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act to reduce the number of harsh drug sentencing policies in the United States. Essentially, the goal of the Smarter Sentencing Act is to reserve the use of federal resources for the offenders of the most serious crimes. Lawmakers supporting this bill hope that it will cause judges to use less harsh punishments such as community service or drug therapy. Making these changes could save taxpayers billions in the first years of enactment alone.

Specifically, the Smarter Sentencing Act would amend the federal criminal code so that defendants without prior record who did not commit a violent crime receive a less severe sentence. The bill also aims to reduce the chance that prisons reach their maximum capacities and lower prison housing costs.

How would the Smarter Sentencing Act impact current laws?

Under current guidelines, a first-time drug offense involving at least 10 but not more than 20 grams of methamphetamine has a recommended sentence range of 27-33 months. Under the new guidelines, the same quantity of methamphetamine would have a sentence range for a first-time offense of 21-27 months.

Attorney General Eric Holder is urging lawmakers to fast track a solution to this problem, stating that “this over-reliance on incarceration is not just financially unsustainable. It comes with human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate.”

Because Democrats and Republicans agree that the extreme sentencing problem is a serious one, prospects are good that this bill has a chance for success. Both parties more or less concede that there is a problem when looking at the prison system in the United States. Former Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan is one of the prominent conservatives expressing his support for reform of current mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

I think we had a trend in America for a long time on mandatory minimums where we took away discretion from judges. I think there’s an appreciation that that approach has some collateral damage—that that approach is missing in many ways…I think there is a new appreciation that we need to give judges more discretion in these areas.

-Paul Ryan

The push to pass the Smarter Sentencing Act is gaining momentum, as almost a year has passed since its introduction in the House in October 2013. Hopefully, with continued support for this legislation, it will soon become law and alleviate the growing problems associated with extreme mandatory minimum drug sentences.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Barnellbe via Wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are We Nearing the End of Failed Mandatory Minimum Sentences? appeared first on Law Street.