American Civil Liberties Union
In today’s edition of The Washington Post, there is a full-page ad sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union promoting what it calls “Fair Justice. Smart Justice.” It asks, “Why are thousands of people spending their lives in prison with no chance of parole for a nonviolent offense?”
If you then go to www.aclu.org/fairandsmart, you can read a book-length report entitled, A LIVING DEATH: Life without Parole for Nonviolent Offenses.
And the report makes a pretty damn good case.
We have been writing with some regularity about the high incarceration rate in this country, the problem of overcrowding in prisons and the largely misguided nature of mandatory minimum sentences that allow judges little or no leeway with individual situations. Part of this is due to the way prosecutors choose to charge particular criminals, and part of it is a reaction for the public’s demand to “get tough on crime.” When you look closely at the details though, mandatory minimum sentencing isn’t really working for anyone.
The ACLU report provides chapter and verse, showing, among other things, that nearly 80 percent of those sentenced to life in prison without parole have committed nonviolent offenses, mostly involving drugs. Sometimes they are repeat offenders, such as “three strikes and you’re out” violators. Not surprising, the largest cohort of those sentenced in this manner are minorities.
But it is doing society little good to keep the majority nonviolent offenders behind bars for extended periods. Certainly there is value is extending the maximum punishment to persons such as Bernie Madoff, who has ruined so many lives. But what is the point of having the state or federal government ruin the lives of people who could be punished or made to provide restitution in far more productive and less costly ways?
Prisons are necessary; very necessary. But though we talk in high-minded terms about rehabilitation and correction, and in more basic terms about punishment and retribution, the primary purpose of prisons must always be to protect society from violent individuals. And if we are reaching the point – as has already been reached in California, for example – where violent offenders are being released from incarceration by court-mandated overcrowding rulings, something is definitely wrong. And a big part of that wrong is that we are taking up too much space with nonviolent offenders.
We have not always been great fans of Attorney General Eric Holder, but he hit the nail on the head in remarks before the American Bar Association this past summer:
“Too many people go to too many prisons for far too long for no good law enforcement reason. We need to ensure that incarceration is used to punish, deter, and rehabilitate – not merely to warehouse and forget.”
The ACLU has a number of recommendations, but what it mainly comes down to is ending Life Without Parole sentences for nonviolent crimes and giving judges the leeway to deal with each sentence in a manner commensurate with the crime and the criminal.
A LIVING DEATH is not easy reading, but it uses rigorous methodology and graphic case studies to reach an inescapable conclusion: too many of the wrong people are in prison. The consequences are wasting valuable lives and resources, and not protecting us adequately from those who really do need to be behind bars.
I cannot agree more. A person who goes and rapes for the third time is let out on bail while I know a first time drug offender is wasting our tax payers dollars. I think our systems needs to think about the people rather then crime.
If a person takes drugs over and over he is only hurting his body. The man down the block who kidnapped and raped before will only do it again. Just look at Jaycee Dougard. If that isn’t enough then we need a new system.
Well said, Lilith, and welcome to the dialogue.
Hate to say it, but I think they do it here in Texas all the time. Not sure if they go from violence to drugs but they sure do plead domestic violence way down to next to nothing. Well, anyway, nothing could possibly be done without a review of the record. I know the prevailing attitude here is that drugs cause a lot of the violence. I don’t think that’s true for most drug users but it may be true for most dealers and hard narcotic drug users. Anyway, I’m very liberal about all that and would prefer a lot of them were not wasting space in jail. My attitude is if they cause violence, then lock them up. The argument back is distribution of drugs causes violence. I think that’s true a fraction of the time, but personally I think the person usually has to already have the propensity for violence for that to be true, but certainly both alcohol and certain (meth for sure) hard narcotics can exacerbate the tendency in a violent person. I think alcohol much more than the drugs, however.
I don’t even believe drunk traps should be legal. I think if you’re driving bad, no matter what reason, arrest that person instead of targeting someone whose substance might make them drive bad in the future. A person who is just an all-around careless driver is more dangerous sober than a good driver is drunk, IMO. Plus don’t see how they’re getting around the Constitution on that one.
You make good points, Cornerstone, but I would hope that any reputable DA would not bargain down a violent crime like rape to a nonviolent one. As far as I’m concerned, that is the threshold – if the crime is violent, a much rigid set of guidelines should be used.
Of course, I agree, except how do we know which ones have pled down to drug charges from some other charge, which could even be use of violence? I think the whole plea system convolutes crime stats and public perception. I mean, maybe it’s not possible, but what if someone raped someone, had drugs in possession or it was a drug retaliation and pled down to possession but it was three strikes?