Author: Indivisible Lambertville / New Hope

Contributed by Amara Willey.

Summary:

Race discrepancies in juvenile detention could be narrowed by handling misdemeanors as civil rather than criminal cases. More resources towards prevention, education, and treatment would also narrow the race gap, according to The Sentencing Project, a criminal justice research and advocacy organization.

___________

According to Department of Justice data, black juveniles are three times more likely to be incarcerated than Latinos, and six times more likely to be incarcerated than whites, nationwide. In New Jersey, for every Caucasian juvenile inmate, there are five Hispanic and 30 African-American inmates, according to the Sentencing Project. In Pennsylvania, the numbers are one Caucasian to nine African-American and three Hispanic juvenile inmates.

Another startling statistic: The vast majority of criminal cases, more than 13 million annually, are misdemeanors.

In many places, misdemeanors are over-enforced in low income neighborhoods, leading to detention, fines and criminal records that can hurt access to education, housing and jobs. On the other side of the coin, in many communities, including those of color, residents demand enforcement of misdemeanors. No one wants to live in a neighborhood overrun by crime and disorder.

As a way to address racial disparity in the justice system, The Sentencing Project recommends alternative sentencing options to incarceration, investing in high school completion, encouraging states to adopt racial impact legislation, supporting drug treatment and prevention, state and local racial equity goals, and examining policy and practice decisions for undue racial impact.

The New York Police Department (NYPD) is working towards one answer of how to address this issue. The NYPD has reduced misdemeanor crime by 36 percent since 2010, by rerouting minor crimes from the criminal to civil courts. In New York, police and prosecutors along with several non-profit organizations are offering those arrested for misdemeanor crimes another alternative to court. Project Reset allows those charged with shoplifting and trespassing the opportunity to complete a restorative-justice circle or a class with a local artist focusing on positive self-expression to leave the process without a criminal record. A recent study of the program showed that cases were resolved 72 percent faster and participants had fewer new arrests compared to those who experienced conventional prosecution.

“New York City offers the outlines of a model that takes seriously the kinds of misbehavior that undermines community quality of life, shrinks the footprint of the justice system and judiciously uses the power of the state to help people improve their lives,” says Greg Berman, the Director of the Center for Court Innovation. “Police should be encouraged to use their discretion to issue warnings and not routinely make arrests when they encounter people engaged in minor rule-breaking. Prosecutors and judges should be provided with alternatives to prosecution and incarceration so that short-term jail sentences can effectively be eliminated. And everyone in the system should be given the training and resources they need to work in a way that is free of bias and that honors the fundamental dignity and humanity of those they encounter.

A 2016 Sentencing Project report found that New Jersey was the most racially disparate state in terms of incarceration, and Pennsylvania was 7th. The study used data collected in 2014. The study found that Pennsylvania had 8.9 African-American people incarcerated for every white person in 2014. New Jersey had a disparity of 12.2 to one. Nationally, the rate is about 5 to one, according to the study. (Pennsylvania had the third highest and New Jersey 10th for ethnic disparity between Hispanic and white persons incarcerated.)

While one of the worst states for racial disparity, New Jersey does have a 2016 racial and ethnic impact law to study the problem and give data to New Jersey legislators to try to ameliorate the system. In October of 2018, Gov. Phil Murphy created a task force by Executive Order for the Continued Transformation of Youth Justice. The task force will focus on reducing recidivism and make recommendations for improving the state’s juvenile justice system, including addressing racial disparities.

In 2017, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency recommended a comprehensive strategy for high-risk youth. Though not directed specifically at juveniles, in April of 2018, Gov. Tom Wolf called for eight key criminal justice reforms, including clean slate legislation and fair sentencing. “We need to do the work to make our criminal justice system fairer, more equitable and more focused on rehabilitation,” Gov. Wolf said.

Sources:

• https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/special_topics/qa11802.asp?qaDate=2015
• https://www.governing.com/gov-institute/voices/col-why-we-need-rethink-misdemeanor-justice.html
• https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Addressing-Racial-Disparities-in-Incarceration.pdf
• https://www.courtinnovation.org/areas-of-focus/addressing-racial-disparities
• http://correctionalnews.com/2018/01/22/new-jersey-racial-disparity-sentencing/
• https://www.governor.pa.gov/governor-wolf-leads-call-action-criminal-justice-reform/

Contributed by Amara Willey.

Status of federal criminal justice reform legislation

Summary:

The December criminal justice reform law called the First Step Act has many benefits for both adult and juvenile offenders. Although the bill received bipartisan support and was touted as a win for Trump, his mid-March budget does not include enough funding for it. Further, federal expansion of background checks for job applicants undermines the letter of the law. However, expansion of criminal justice reform will undoubtedly be a part of the 2020 election, with the introduction of Sen. Cory Booker’s Next Step bill.

The First Step Act, signed into law in December 2018, provides reforms for federal prisons and sentencing, more education and job training, and rehabilitative programs for inmates. This bipartisan law, which seemed to have the support of the President, has a number of challenges facing it.

Funding the law requires $75 million per year for five years. As of this writing, how the law will get this funding is not clear. President Trump’s mid-March budget draft underfunded the program by more than $60 million for the first year. The Justice Department could choose to reallocate funds or use savings from the early release of prisoners to help fund the program to help make up the shortfall. Further, it is unlikely that the draft will pass Congress.

Prisoners slated to be released on good behavior under the First Step Act may have to wait as much as seven months for their release while the programs in the Act are being implemented. The Federal Bureau of Prisons said in a statement to Mother Jones: “We know that inmates and their families are particularly interested in the changes regarding good conduct time, but, it is not effective immediately, nor is it applicable to all inmates.”

One of the most promising programs, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention which revamps how states treat juvenile offenders, was unmentioned in President Trump’s State of the Union address. Under the new law, states are required to collect data on racial disparities in the juvenile system and develop strategies for addressing inequality. Failure to comply will affect federal funding allocations to those states for the purpose of data collection. The law mitigates sentencing for juveniles, prohibits the holding of juveniles in adult facilities, and prevents states from detaining juveniles for more than seven days for truancy or running away from home.

“This legislation strengthens each of the core protections for children in the juvenile justice system,” Rep. Bobby Scott (D) of Virginia said in a statement when the bill passed the House in December. “It ensures children are treated separately — both in approach and location — than adult offenders; it shifts the focus from punishing young people to supporting them through education and programming; and it puts a spotlight on the racial disparities in our juvenile justice system.”

On the other end of the spectrum, the Federal government seems to be moving towards expanding background checks for federal job applicants, which is exactly opposite to the spirit of the new law. The criminal justice journalism non-profit organization, The Marshall Project, reported that the US Office of Personnel Management wants to expand criminal background checks for applicants of federal jobs and contracting positions, requiring them to disclose not only if they’ve served prison sentences, but also if they’ve spent time in jail or gone through diversion programs. The ACLU believes this will interfere with state and local courts’ choice to utilize diversion programs as an alternative. It’s just a proposal for now, and the public has until April 23 to submit comments on the idea at www.regulations.gov.

In early March, NJ Senator and presidential candidate, Cory Booker, who was instrumental in the passage of the First Step Act, introduced the Next Step criminal justice reform bill. The bill addresses sentencing, drug-related convictions, expungement, racial profiling, voter rights reinstatement and police racial bias training, among others. One of the most promising parts of the bill is reintegration and early release, which could provide significant cost reduction to the prison system. With bipartisan support for criminal justice reform, this is bound to be a hot topic for the 2020 presidential election.

“The Next Step Act is the most comprehensive, ambitious criminal justice bill to be introduced in Congress in a generation. It would reduce harsh mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug offenses, while also eliminating the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences,” said Booker in a Washington Post Op-Ed. “It would also prohibit federal employers and contractors from asking job applicants about their criminal history until the final stages of the interview process; improve the ability of those behind bars to stay in touch with loved ones; provide better training for law enforcement officers in implicit racial bias, de-escalation and use-of-force; reinstate voting rights for formerly incarcerated individuals; and end the federal prohibition on marijuana.”

The Next Step bill includes the following:

• Prohibiting federal employers and contractors from asking about criminal records
• Granting licenses for certain job categories, such as hairdresser and taxi driver, to those with records
• Restoring voting rights to former inmates
• Reducing mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug-related crimes
• Training for law enforcement on racial bias
• The Marijuana Justice Act

Sources:

https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2019/03/trump-budget-jared-kushner-first-step-act-underfunded/

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/03/05/would-expanded-criminal-background-checks-hurt-federal-job-applicants

https://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-trump-sotu-juvenile-criminal-justice-reform-states.html

https://www.nj.com/politics/2019/03/here-is-bookers-next-effort-to-change-the-criminal-justice-system.html

Contributed by Paige Barnett.

Prisons for profit is a thing in the land of liberty and the supposed free. We are led to believe that in the United States justice will be served with just prudence. We would like to believe that people who have committed crimes will not over nor under serve their due time.  However, this is not always the case.

“Private prisons” made a comeback in the 1980s after they were prohibited in the early 20th century. Today there are 27 states that use private corporations to manage their prison populations. Prisons and profit are two words that should never be in the same sentence, let alone be a serious, real-life civil rights issue.

By definition a private prison or a prison for profit is a place where “private prison companies typically enter into contractual agreements with governments that commit prisoners and then pay a per diem or monthly rate, either for each prisoner in the facility, or for each available bed, whether occupied or not. Such contracts may be only for the operation of a facility, or can encompass the design, construction and operation.”

These for-profit prison corporations view themselves as an asset to the public sector. The justification for the use of prisons for profit/private prisons, is that it should save taxpayers money. They believe they can more efficiently operate prisons and that the profit motive demands cuts to superfluous expenses.  

In the name of profits and cutting expenses, however, underpaid guards frequently lead to understaffed prisons. Understaffed prisons inevitably fall prey to the inability to manage gang violence and increases the potential for escapees. This for-profit model promotes down right unsafe conditions.   

In addition, expose’s like “The Kids for Cash Scandal” demonstrate a profoundly disturbing civil rights violation. Judges in Wilkes-Barre, PA, were found to have adjudicated juveniles for longer sentences than were warranted for the crime, and were ultimately indicted on 48 counts.

Further, research shows a higher rate of recidivism in prisoners released from a private prison, plus a lack of programs focused on rehabilitation. According to a DOJ study, 50 percent of incarcerated people return to prison within three years of being released. Here’s the kicker: Academic research found that incarcerating people in prisons operated by private companies, which have business models dependent on incarceration, increases the likelihood of those people recidivating. There is no incentive to rehabilitate prisoners to reduce the rates of recidivism. It’s not just cost-efficient to put money into programs that help enable ‘clientele’ stay out of prison if the reason for existing is to ensure a profit. The very nature of a prison for profit model means to keep people incarcerated for as long as possible. 

Is it any wonder why the United States is Number One among all nations in rates of incarceration? Are we really just? In light of numerous civil liberty violations, especially of young people, it begs the question, should prisons garner a profit?  And if so, how can these prisons be regulated to prevent this type of corruption?

Sources

https://legalbeagle.com/8111109-pros-cons-prison-privatization.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/us/private-prisons-escapes-riots.html

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2017/may/5/report-says-private-prison-companies-increase-recidivism/