Reentry Court Solutions – Page 3 – A resource for community based reentry court systems

Prison Pop. down 3 Years in a Row

December 11, 2013 by admin

Dec. 9, 2013

After reaching a high of 1 in 100 adults behind bars in 2008, the U.S. prison population has now declined for three consecutive years. According to new data released by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of offenders in state prisons decreased 2.1 percent during 2012. The state imprisonment rate also dropped by 2.6 percent. The federal prison population continued to grow, though at a slower pace than in recent years.

According to Adam Gelb, Director of Pew’s public safety performance project, “Growing prison populations aren’t fate or simply the product of giant forces of social or demographic trends. They are primarily the result of policy choices. State policymakers on both sides of the aisle are now taking deliberate steps to bend the curve and these are starting to pay off in lower costs and less crime.”

Cal jails see increased violence since Realignment?

December 4, 2013December 3, 2013 by admin

Dec. 2, 2013

The media is having a field day quoting anonymous sources, arguing that an increase in jail violence in California Jails is due to the more violent offenders who would have been placed in prison, and now being placed in California jails under Realignment Reform.

The story is accurate as far as it goes but it doesn’t necessarily go far enough. The combined population In the 10 largest county jails grew 14 percent through 2012 while inmate-on-inmate assaults rose 32 percent and inmate-on-staff assaults rose 27 percent. Clearly a significant increase.

But when you look behind the numbers, you find some obvious and even some unsuspected causes.

1. When you put more offenders in a jail (as in a prison), there will be more violence as the overcrowding causes an increase in tension and violence (remember the experiments with rats in a cage from high school). The fact is that while some jails are experiencing greater violence, jail population is up; prison populations are down and prison violence is down.

“Simultaneously, the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation saw a 15 percent drop in inmate-on-inmate assaults within state prisons, while attacks on employees dropped 24 percent as the prison population dramatically declined last year, according to statistics obtained through a separate public records request by the AP.” (NBC News)

2. Jails aren’t designed for long term offenders. If you put those with ten year sentences in a jail (as realignment allows), there will be consequences. But that ignores the very purpose of Prison Realignment. In pre-realignment times, counties dumped their bad boys and girls in state prisons far from home where they wouldn’t have to deal with them for as long as the county judge sent them up for. It was a free ride, the state picked up the tab and a lot of counties took full advantage of that. Realignment is bringing accountability and financial responsibility back to the sentencing county where it ought to be.

3. Following up on Point 2, Realignment was designed to encourage county judges to split prison sentences and use alternatives to incarceration whenever appropriate. Those sentenced to prison, yet placed in county jail (I know, it can be hard to get a hold of that concept), would receive a portion of the sentence in jail and the rest in what is euphemistically called “mandatory supervision”, (another way of describing probation for the serious offender). What was envisioned was judges using split sentencing to transition offenders from jail into the community under supervision, where alternatives to incarceration would be available to the offender The last statistics I’ve seen suggest that the courts are not up to the task. Except for some outstanding exceptions (Santa Clara, San diego, and a few more), sentenced prisoners get straight jail sentence more than eighty percent of the time. And when a judge does that, the sentence is final, and the offender remains in jail for the full term.

So when you read about how California Realignment isn’t working, it’s a good idea to read down to the bottom of the article, for a fuller picture “Sacramento County was the only one to see a decrease in inmate-on-inmate assaults, while Alameda, Los Angeles and Santa Clara counties saw declines in assaults on staff.”

This is a work in progress that many would like to roll back. While Realignment is unlikely to go away, the big push is to build jails that are virtual prisons. Watch for it.

Reauthorized Second Chance Act will include Reentry Courts

November 26, 2013November 26, 2013 by admin

November 18, 2013

Reentry Courts which appeared to have been written out of the reauthorized “Second Chance Act”, received a reprieve when language that included reentry courts as possible grantees of Second Chance Grant funds was inserted into the Reauthorization Act. (see below)……………………………………………………………………………..

[An issue worth pondering: while reentry courts may be funded under the reauthorized Act, previous references to the court as a necessary partner and participant in grants applications, has to my knowledge, disappeared from grant guidelines. In fact, while the inclusion of reentry drug courts as possible recipients of Second Chance Act grant awards is clearly a positive, the inclusion of the courts as necessary partners in the application and implementation of all grants would be a much more appropriate and important inclusion]………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

From the Amended legislative language: “In this section, the term reentry court means a program that—(1) monitors juvenile and adult eligible offenders reentering the community; (2) provides continual judicial supervision; (3) provides juvenile and adult eligible offenders reentering the community with coordinated and comprehensive reentry services and programs, such as—(A) drug and alcohol testing and assessment for treatment;( B) assessment for substance abuse from a substance abuse professional who is approved by the State or Indian tribe and licensed by the appropriate entity to provide alcohol and drug addiction treatment, as appropriate; ( C) substance abuse treatment from a provider that is approved by the State or Indian tribe, and licensed, if necessary, to provide medical and other health services;(D) health (including mental health) services and assessment; (E) aftercare and case management services that—(i) facilitate access to clinical care and related health services; and (ii) coordinate with such clinical care and related health services; and (F) any other services needed for reentry; (4) convenes community impact panels, victim impact panels, or victim impact educational classes;(5) provides and coordinates the delivery of community services to juvenile and adult eligible offenders, including—(A) housing assistance; (B) education; © job training; (D) conflict resolution skills training;(E) batterer intervention programs; and (F) other appropriate social services; and (6) establishes and implements graduated sanctions and incentives.”

Life Without Parole for Non-Violent Offenders

November 19, 2013 by admin

Novemebr 18, 4013

Taken from a Press Release from the ACLU: “In the first-ever study of people serving life without parole for nonviolent offenses in the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union found that at least 3,278 prisoners fit this category in federal and state prisons combined.”

“A Living Death: Life Without Parole for Nonviolent Offenses” features key statistics about these prisoners, an analysis of the laws that produced their sentences, and case studies of 110 men and women serving these sentences. Of the 3,278 prisoners, 79 percent were convicted of nonviolent, drug-related crimes such as possession or distribution, and 20 percent of nonviolent property crimes like theft.

The report goes on to state that the number of offenders sentence to life without parole has quadrupled over the last twenty years, with 65% African-American.

There are now important forces at work to reform this anomaly. Senators Rand Paul and Patrick Leahy, Attorney General Eric Holder and other influential policy makers are coming out for the reduction and /or elimination of the mandatory minimum laws that make these outrageous sentences possible. It’s important to remember the 3000+ offenders presently serving life terms, when we reform the mandatory minimum laws.

Attorney General Endorses Federal Reentry Courts

November 12, 2013November 12, 2013 by admin

Novemeber 11, 2013

Last week, Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General journeyed to Philadelphia to attend a session of the STAR Federal Reentry Court Program. The STAR Program (Supervision to Aid Re-entry) has shown substantial success. Nationally, 47 percent of federal offenders return to prison before the end of their court-mandated supervision. Among STAR participants, that figure is about 20 percent, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said. Officials estimate STAR has already saved $1.5 million in incarceration costs.

Attorney General Holder sat through a session where seventeen participants talked to the presiding judge about their experiences in an informal setting and received individual attention and encouragement from the judge and reentry court team. Holder expressed great admiration for the Philadelphia Reentry Court Program and described similar efforts as a high priority for the remainder of his term.

RCS has visited the STAR program before. In 2010 we published the STAR Reentry Court’s Annual Report (see 2010 STAR Annual Report) While Federal Reentry Courts are a welcome addition to existing Problem-Solving Courts, to be honest their success has been limited by the number of participants .

The Federal Reentry courts, have been to my knowledge, the only significant attempt by the federal courts, themselves, to monitor and support offenders leaving federal prisons. The numbers of participants are small; apparently 17 current participants in the Philadelphia program (some Fedral Reentry Courts have as few as ten participants). Compare that to the vast number of offenders in need of similar programs. And while the Philadelphia Reentry Court has shown a willingness to deal with serious and violent offenders in its programs, most other Federal Reentry Courts have been reluctant to do so.

As background, I first approached Federal Judicial and Probation Officials in 1999, as President of NADCP (National Association of Drug Court Professionals). They were dubious at best as to the potential of Drug Courts or other Problem-Solving Courts, at the front end of the sentencing process.. When we suggested that a similar program be embedded at the backend of the prison term, they did not seem particularly interested. Since then, there has been a small shake-up in the Federal Courts re alternatives to prison.

There are apparently over forty Federal Courts across the nation who have embrace the Problem-Solving Court concept. The structural, institutional, and procedural adherence to the Problem Solving Court Model has been uniformly exceptional. What is a concern is the token quality of the federal commitment. I don’t know why the federal push for reentry court has been so limited, but i do know that it needs to reach out to a substantial number of offenders to have any significant impact on recidivism. I do not say this lightly. One or three or five percent of released Federal Offenders are a good beginning for a well structured program that has made a commitment to deal with a great many more. I hope that the Attorney General’s endorsement and setting of Federal Reentry Courts as a priority for the Justice Department will make a difference.

72 Nations meet to Promote Prison Reform

November 5, 2013November 5, 2013 by admin

November 4, 2013

Important news on the Prison Reform Front from Colorado this week.The International Corrections and Prisons Association conference met in Colorado Springs last week at their 15th annual conference. The Conference theme this year was “Thinking Outside the Cell: Reducing the Use of Imprisonment”. The fact that the International organization representing the prison leadership of 72 nations would focus their annaul conference on “Reducing the Use of Imprisonment” is an important harbinger of things to come.

Prison directors from 72 countries from Namibia to the Netherlands attended the week-long conference in large part to look at ideas for reducing a world prison population of more than 10 million inmates

More than 500 delegates filled the conference halls of the Antlers Hilton in downtown for the weeklong summit. Chief among a the workshop subjects and discussion sessions was the issue of mental health in corrections. More than 100 delegates lead sessions through Friday, touching on diverse subjects, such as “In the Mind of a Gang Leader,” and “The Use of Segregation.”

Tineke De Waele of Belgium, the executive director of ICPA, said conference workshops are focused on alternatives to prison and ideas for moving inmates safely into the community.While prisons are crucial for keeping citizens safe, they are costly and often serve as learning centers for other types of crime, she said.“It is important that all countries look for alternatives to incarceration,” De Waele said.

“Every nation and jurisdiction delivers justice differently, but the ICPA gives all of us the opportunity to network, build partnerships and learn from each other,” said Canada Correctional Service Commissioner Don Head.” Ruben Fernandez Lima, director general of prevention and social rehabilitation for the state of Mexico said.”I do believe that at this point in the world, prisons are at a breaking point,”

It seems that the theme of reducing and reforming prisons has achieved a level international importance in many (if not most nations). It means that momentum for prison reform is growing. It also means that we need to take advantage of this shift in the wind, and push for reform now, before old mindsets reassert themselves..

Vision 8: ‘God is a prisoner,’ says pope in call for justice system reform

November 18, 2020October 28, 2013 by admin

NOTE: Sept 18,2015…With the Pope visiting the U.S. this week, I think his statements in regard to incarceration and imprisonment are extraordinary and extremely timely as the nation looks at the issues leading to overpopulated prisons.

Pope Francis,in a talk with Italian Prison Chaplains called for a more humane justice system, saying God too was “a prisoner” of the world’s injustices and was in every cell. Rather than write about the Pope’s words, here are his extraordinary words as spoken::

“God is a prisoner too. He is inside the cell,”

He is a prisoner of our egoism, of our systems, of the many injustices… that punish the weak while the big fish swim freely,”

“You have spoken of a justice system for reconciliation, a justice system of hope, of open doors, of new horizons,” he said. “This is no utopia. It can happen,”

“Thinking about this is good for me: When we have the same weakness, why did they fall and I didn’t? This is a mystery that makes me pray and draws me to prisoners,”

“No cell is so isolated that it can keep the Lord out. “He is there. He cries with them, works with them, hopes with them. His paternal and maternal love arrives everywhere.”

“He, too, is imprisoned today, imprisoned in our selfishness, our systems, and many injustices because it’s easy to punish the weakest, but the big fish swim free.”

A New Grand Bargain on Criminal Justice Sentencing

October 22, 2013October 21, 2013 by admin

October, 21, 2013

I’ve watched the various demographics come together, the political parties spar around it, and religious and community organizations find different purpose through it. It is “Prison Reform” And it means different things to different people with very different agendas. For many its about reducing the number of offenders in prison. How that happens can be less important than getting it done. Others describe it as decriminalization, or legalization of drug offenders or other classes of offenders. Governors often talk about putting offenders into drug courts or other problem-solving courts as a way to reduce drug abuse and criminality.It is hard to understand ho we got to this place where the imprisoned have had their sentences doubled or even tripled in twenty years, while those sentenced to prison have increased some six hundred percent over the past thirty years. How do we begin to undo the damage we have done over the last generation to our communities.

Twelve years ago I wrote a monograph, “Rational Drug Policy Reform”; A Resource Guide (Center for Problem-Solving Courts, 2001). In it, I tried to lay out the arguments for de-criminalization and legalization, in an attempt to show how different the two were, and how important it was for Drug Reform to support hte former and oppose the latter. At the time, it was clear to me those who possessed small quantities of drugs should only be charged with misdemeanors; that demanding felony convictions would destroy far more lives than it would ever save. I described the criminal law as a public health tool or a means to an end, reduction in drug abuse and criminality. Though some of what I wrote didn’t turn out to be especially prescient, I believe the decriminalization of drugs and the reduction of less serious offenses to non-prison offenses has proven to be sound policy.[click on image on left for copy of “Rational Drug Policy Reform”]

So we’re very much in the place we were then. California’s Proposition 36 was a plan to keep drug abusers out of custody, (pretty much under any circumstance). I wrote my monograph to address the dangers of a law that neither provided incentives or sanctions to the drug offender. Proposition 36 has been forgotten by many, and there is little scientific data to support declaring it a success or failure; an unfortunate circumstance. Today, the Governor has vetoed a bill that would make possession of more serious drugs (cocaine, heroin,……) a felony or misdemeanor, depending on how the D.A. and judge charge/process the offense. Is the Governor right or wrong. He claims that he isn’t opposed to the legislation; only that it ought to be part of a grand criminal justice agreement, that will settle the many criminal justice issues that remain outstanding.

Governor Brown in 1976 reaching a grand Bargain (the Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act) that turned out to be a disaster of the first order. Writing about it’s progeny in the Modesto Bee, “California today has more than 1,000 felony sentencing laws and more than 100 felony sentence enhancements spread across 21 sections in the California Penal Code.” Perhaps we need to move forward toward real criminal justice sentencing reform now, rather than put it off for another day.

Cal allows expungement of some prison felonies

October 17, 2013October 15, 2013 by admin

October 14, 2013

As reported by the” Lawyer’s Committee”, co-sponsor with the ACLU among others, of the bill signed by the Governor on October 13.

“As a result of the “Public Safety Realignment Act” of 2011, some individuals will now serve sentences in a local jail for lower-level felony convictions that used to have state prison as the only sentence available. Under AB 651, after these individuals serve their time in jail, they will have an opportunity to ask the court to set aside their convictions, subject to a waiting period and a showing of rehabilitation. AB 651 provides a critical step forward for people who have served their sentences, helping them to avoid the stigma associated with prison time and to better access the jobs and housing they need to leave the criminal justice system permanently behind them.”

I agree with the “Lawyer’s Committee”. AB 651 is an important step forward. It allows felony offenders to seek expungement of less serious felonies, where the offender is sentenced to prison (but under California’s “Realignment Reform” serve their term in county jail). It is estimated that as many as half of offenders sentenced to prison in the future, will serve their term under county jurisdiction and post sentence supervision. That means that those offenders can return to the court to request expungement (as post-felony probationers do now), after they have completed their jail and/or court supervision. The D.A may object as they often do now, and the court may ultimately deny the request, but the jurisdiction is with the court, as to whether a felon sentenced to prison (yet serving under county jurisdiction), may have their offense expunged by the court.

In all, a very good indicator of the direction of the criminal law, placing jurisdiction and discretion with the court as to the felony offender’s criminal status,reentering the community.

Governor Brown takes next step in Prison Reform

October 7, 2013October 7, 2013 by admin

October 9, 2013

Governor Brown has somewhat reluctantly taken an important step forward in prison reform. While just a few short months ago, he was insisting that he had done all he could to improve prison overcrowding consistent with community safety, he has with the passing of two important pieces of legislation still made impressive progress.

As noted in the Press-Enterprise, on Oct. 5, Governor Brown signed into law the Trust Act, which bars police from turning over immigration detainees arrested for non-violent crimes to federal immigration officials for possible deportation. While the impact upon prisons may not be immediately apparent, the fewer immigrants held in custody either in state or county facilities (or in state or county facilities leased by federal authorities), the less the need for new prisons and jails in the state.

More importantly, Governor Brown signed a bill, a compromise hashed out with State Senate President Daryl Steinberg, that allows for the continuing imprisonment of some 9,000 prisoners (with the agreement of the three judge federal panel), while over $300 million is spent on drug and mental health treatment, and other alternatives to imprisonment over the next three years.

If the Three Judge Federal Panel had refused to modify it’s previous order to reduce Cal prisons by an additional 9,000 by Decemebr 31, Brown would have sent the 9000 to private or out of state prisons. But the Judges seized upon the opening to move the state toward a more lasting and “durable solution to the prison crowding problem”, and extended the prison reduction deadline until Jan. 27 to allow the state to meet with inmate lawyers and said that they might extend the deadline even further if progress is being made.”

Importantly, as noted in a Press Democrat article, “the court also gave some directions, saying discussions about reducing prison crowding should cover juvenile offenders serving lengthy sentences, inmates being held for federal immigration authorities [addressed in the Trust Act], elderly and infirm inmates, and three strike inmates eligible for early release under an initiative approved by voters in 2010”.

All of the above is an important intermediate step in a process to reform California’s prison system. As noted in my article of February 2013, “The easy part of prison reform”, found immediately below, we are just beginning the process of reforming our sentencing and prison system.

The easy part of prison reform

October 9, 2013October 7, 2013 by admin

Feb.10, 2013

The following article is reprinted from a February posting, as it speaks to the dilemma that California criminal justice policy makers.

According to the Sacramento Bee, “Gov. Jerry Brown had his “Mission Accomplished” moment…… He believes “victory should be declared” in the state’s prison overcrowding crisis” He was also quoted as saying “California’s prison health care system is now a model for the nation,” and that any further reduction in state prisoners would endanger the public’s safety.

Clearly the Governor has much to be proud of. He had pushed through the legislature, AB109, a bill that reduced prison populations by about 50,000 prisoners in a year, and fought successfully for Proposition 30, making billions of dollars available to counties impacted by Brown’s transitioning of responsibility for non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex-offenders to the counties. Still, what has been accomplished is the first part, the easy part of prison reform, More complicated and critical reforms have not begun to be addressed.

State prisons still house offenders who could do better in their own communities, even if it means spending additional time in county jail. AB109 was intended to encourage alternatives to incarceration, but relatively few counties are accepting that challenge, Instead most are expanding and/or building new jail facilities. Somehow, we must encourage counties to spend more of their Proposition 30 money on alternatives to prison rather than jail substitutes for prison. One obvious reform would be to encourage judges to sentence AB109 offenders to spit sentences (offenders who must be housed in jail, even though the offense is defined as a prison offense), so that the court could supervise their jail conduct and rehabilitation in the community. More than 80% of AB109 offenders sentenced to jail receive a jail sentence that cannot be reduced or transferred to community supervision.

While Governor Brown’s prison reform limits those sent to prison to more serious offenders, it ignores the doubling of prison sentences for serious offenders over the past twenty years. Why assume that the legislature’s response to sensational crime with ever increasing penalties is rational or justified. Why assume that the labyrinth of sentencing law and enhancements make sense or are necessary or appropriate.

Then there are the obvious reforms that almost everyone supports, but for some reason are almost never implemented. Drug, alcohol and mental health treatment, education, and job training while the offender is in custody, is almost universally supported by the public. Half-Way Houses or similar Institutions, that allow the offender to transition to the outside, while continuing under custodial or other substantial supervision are also favored by most. Finally, continued oversight of the offender while in the community, under the care and supervision of the court and supervisory agencies (through AB109 split sentencing or reentry courts) is a necessity for most successful prisoner rehabilitation.

It’s easy to see that the governor has done well in beginning the prison reform process in California. Stopping now, without continuing and expanding its scope, providing resources, assistance, and supervision to those coming out of custody, will surely set the incarcerated up for continued failure and and a return to custody.

The Troubling Paradox in the Rise of Life Sentences

September 30, 2013 by admin

The Sentencing Project has released a new report, “Life Goes On: The Historic Rise In Life Sentences in America”, that describes the extraordinary increase in those sent to prison for Life [click on image on left for PDF copy] According to the report, “Last year, 159,520 people were serving life sentences in American prisons, a 12 percent increase from 2008. The number of individuals serving life without parole has increased even more dramatically, from 40,174 in 2008 to 49,081 in 2012 — a 22 percent rise.

“Although most “lifers” have been convicted of homicide or sexual assault, the use of life sentences has expanded over time to include a wider range of offenses, including property crimes (5,416 prisoners) and drug crimes (2,686). In Idaho, prisoners who have not been convicted of homicide comprise more than half the population of lifers, the highest in the country; in Washington, they represent 46 percent.”

These statistics portray a troubling paradox in the current media narrative on prison reform. While prison reform has been embraced by nearly all, those who are sentenced to prison for more serious offenses are spending far longer than they did and in greater numbers than a few short years ago.

In an article I wrote in January 2012, “California prison terms for violent criminals more than double“, I quote from a Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) article, “California offenders who committed violent crimes can now expect to serve 7 years in prison — in 1990, they would have served less than 3. Looking at people who committed murder, those who were released in 2009 served an average of 16 years; now, they can expect to serve more than 50 years. This lengthening of sentences for violent crimes is a major reason California’s prisons are overflowing and will continue to do so. In 2009, nearly 100,000 of the state’s prison inmates were doing time for violent crimes, a number that will only grow as the exit door continues to recede.”

Lizzie Buchen’s who wrote that CJCJ article, argues that research coming out of the PEW Center of the States, supports the position that longer sentences are a major reason for the explosion in prison populations and the enormous cost of keeping prisoners locked up. (PDF of the PEW article, “Time Served; The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms”)

Are we paying attention to the right prison reform statistics, or ignoring one of the most troubling of indicators, the appropriateness and rationality of the priosn terms that serious offenders are required to serve.

Review of new Critique of Drug Courts

September 30, 2013September 30, 2013 by admin

Sept. 30, 2013

The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, published an article in May of 2013, addressing a critical issue, “Can Drug Courts Help to Reduce Prison and Jail Populations?” [click on image on the left for a PDF of the article]. Written by Eric L. Sevigny, Harold A. Pollack, and Peter Reuter, the article was recently analyzed in a University of Chicago Urban Network, issue, which concluded, ” drug courts have significant capacity constraints and so cannot handle the full number of drug offenders; the eligibility criteria for participating is very strict, most significantly barring anyone with a current or prior violent offense; many participants fail to complete their therapy, and so end up in jail or prison anyway; and sentencing laws such as mandatory minimums or habitual offender statutes prevent offenders from participating.”

I have addressed these issues in the past, and believe that it is important to provide a response. I agree with much of the criticism, I also believe that the writers and reviewers miss the main issue concerning the limitations regarding drug court outreach. Drug Courts are not intended to deal with all drug abusers, only the most serious drug users, those with a dependence upon drugs. It is generally understood that they are a small minority of those who use drugs and those who find themselves facing criminal charges involving drug abuse. I have seen estimates of those who use but are not addicted to drugs to be as high as 90% of the drug using population. If we expect drug courts to deal with those who are non-dependent on drugs, to be handled within a drug court we need to rethink the very concept of a drug court.

That is not to say that we should ignore the drug usage of those who are non -addicted, but make sure we are dealing with their dependence as part of a larger response to their criminal behavior. We need to do appropriate risk and needs assessments of all offenders (or at least all felony offenders) and handle their cases in a rational manner, and that means their drug issue, as serious as it is determined to be, by clinical and scientific evaluation. For the vast majority of drug offenders, (who are not drug dependent), that means that drugs are a second tier need, and that issues concerning their attitudes as to criminality, family and friends are far more important.

To repeat a tired phrase; Drug Court has become the proverbial lonely hammer in a tool belt, used because that’s all we have to use in our struggle against drug abuse and criminality. We are unable to develop a more nuanced and effective way to deal with the drug offender and their criminality, so we put them in drug court.Those who have the greatest need, the serious and dependent drug offender (often with a serious criminal history) are refused entrance because they are criminals. Isn’t that the population we were most concerned about providing effective rehabilitation for in the first place.

While the authors are right in complaining that drug courts are not reaching the vast majority of drug abusers, they are wrong to suggest that that is the population that drug courts need to engage. We need to develop evidence-based sentencing systems that provide appropriate responses to criminogenic needs, not dump all drug users into the same dumpster [See: A Model Court-Based Sentencing System]

AFL-CIO takes a stand for Prison Reform

September 23, 2013 by admin

September 23,2013

As reported in The Nation on Sept.10th, “the largest federation of US unions, the AFL-CIO, passed resolutions Monday slamming “the big business behind mass incarceration,” promising intensified collaboration with alternative labor groups and granting its leadership new oversight tools designed to spur more effective organizing by its fifty-seven unions.”

AFL-CIO President Larry Trumka (see photo on left) came down hard on the nations prison policies, “Mass incarceration is a betrayal of the American promise,” Trumka told the crowd before taking comments from the floor. “The practice hurts our people and our communities, it keeps wages low, it suppresses democracy, and we can’t afford to imprison so many people. Nor can our families, our communities or our country afford the loss of productivity of these people.”

The resolution, among other things, backed closer cooperation between the AFL-CIO and “worker centers” that organize and mobilize workers who lack collective bargaining rights (such as prisoner unions), and a greater role for Working America, the AFL-CIO’s own affiliate for non-union workers. While the AFL-CIO has resources and leverage, it does not have control of the fifty-seven unions that comprise it. The real test for Trumka and his prison reform initiative will be whether the AFL-CIO can convince law enforcement and prison guard unions to follow his lead in supporting prison reform, even when those initiatives threatens jobs within those unions.

New York State , which has closed thirteen prisons over the past five years has been actively seeking to build new industries and revive old ones in rural areas of the state, where the prisons are mostly located. Governor Cuomo has sought to foster coalitions of local farmers in upstate New York with prison guard unions, in an attempt to increase the number of jobs available to newly unemployed prison guards (see article on Cuomo’s “Milk Not Jails” initiative).

Columbia U. Scientist says 80-90% of Drug Users not Addicted

September 24, 2013September 23, 2013 by admin

September 23,2013

Dr. Carl Hart, an Associate Professor of Psycology at Columbia University, has written a book debunking so-called myths about drug usage. According to Dr. Hart, “Eighty to 90 percent of people who use crack and methamphetamine don’t get addicted,”. This somewhat contrarian position is of interest, because it runs counter to accepted concepts of much the scientific community in this country. In his recently published book, “High Price“, His book attributes the drug problem to societal ills and claims that drug abuse is merely a symptom of society’s problems.

Although highly controversial, Dr. Hart’s assertions are supported in part, by some fellow scientists (see New York Times article, “The Rational Choice of Crack Addicts“). “Drug warriors may be skeptical of his work, but some other scientists are impressed. “Carl’s overall argument is persuasive and driven by the data,” said Craig R. Rush, a psychologist at the University of Kentucky who studies stimulant abuse”.

While I find Dr.Hart’s research of interest, I believe that his findings may overstate the benign nature of drug abuse. Drugs like crack cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine are often enormously destructive to the users and those around them. Most scientists would agree that sociological influences can and do have an enormous influence on the drug user and their level of abuse. As Dr.Hart claims, it is an easy out to blame physical addiction for the drug abuser’s criminal conduct and anti-social behavior.

While most researchers would admit that addicts make up less than half of those charged with drug offenses, politicians continue to argue that if we can cure the offender of their reliance on drugs, we will solved the crime problem. But as those knowledgeable about the criminal justice system know, if you cure the drug abuser of their dependence on drugs, you may simply create a healthier criminal.

The reality is that their are multiple reasons why people are drug abusers and commit anti-social acts and that the path to recovery may require an equally multi-faceted response. Blaming everything on drug abuse clearly misses the point, according to Dr.Hart. It will take treatment, rehabilitation (and habilitation in many cases), jobs and job training, education, and most of all, a willingness to give the anti-social outsider, an opportunity to be part of and have a stake in mainstream society.