admin – Page 3 – Reentry Court Solutions

AG Holder’s push for systemic clemency program

February 5, 2014 by admin

February 3,2014

The Washington Pst reports that the Obama administration is stepping up its efforts to overhaul the criminal justice system, called Thursday for the early release of more low-level, nonviolent drug offenders from federal prisons.

“Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, speaking to the New York State Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Section, said the administration wants to free inmates who no longer pose a threat to public safety and whose long-term incarceration “harms our criminal justice system.” He appealed to defense lawyers to identify candidates for clemency”.

Urban Institue reports on “Justice Reinvestment Initiative”

January 28, 2014January 28, 2014 by admin

January 28, 2014

The Urban Institute has issued a positive report on seventeen states that have adopted the “Justice Reinvestment Initiative”and issued the following statement,

“Seventeen Justice Reinvestment Initiative states are projected to save as much as $4.6 billion through reforms that increase the efficiency of their criminal justice systems. Eight states that had JRI policies in effect for at least one year – Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and South Carolina – reduced their prison populations. Through the Initiative, states receive federal dollars to assess and improve their criminal justice systems while enhancing public safety. This report chronicles 17 states as they enacted comprehensive criminal justice reforms relying on bipartisan and interbranch collaboration. The studynotes common factors that drove prison growth and costs and documents how each state responded with targeted policies.”

The Justice Reinvestment Initiative State Assessment Report was written by Nancy La Vigne, the project’s principal investigator, along with a team of researchers from the Urban Institute (click on image on left for PDF).

[See Justice Reinvestment Initiative”Leads Prison Reform]

Most of Cal. Realignment funds go to Jail Expansion

January 21, 2014January 21, 2014 by admin

January 20,2013

It’s disheartening to see the negligible amount of money that has been made available for rehabilitation and reentry programs under California’s Realignment Reform. Most of the state’s money comes from a discretionary realignment fund that counties can use to fund realignment projects as they see fit.

According to a report last year by the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, criminal justice critics say county leaders could have spent more of their new money on rehabilitation. In the first year of realignment, counties budgeted 16 percent of the $367 million they received from the state for services such as mental health and drug treatment (Sacramento Bee, Jan 14,2013).

“Leaders at the California State Association of Counties, the Chief Probation Officers of California and the California State Sheriffs’ Association say they need more money for job training, mental health care and substance abuse treatment.” But still the state overwhelmingly supports funding jail expansion at the expense of treatment and rehabilitation dollars. California’s new budget proposal plans to give counties $500 million for new jail space, on top of $500 million that is now being distributed through a competitive grant program.

Part of the problem is that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation historically has not emphasized rehabilitation, Just 5 percent of department spending goes to programs and services for offenders,

And part of the problem is that counties are fearful of the political consequences of crimes committed by offenders serving prison sentences in jail facilities. According to the Sacramento Bee article,” Sixty percent of parolees released to counties from October 2011 through September 2012 were arrested for new offenses within 12 months of leaving prison, the same rate as a comparable population of parolees managed by the state the year before the law took effect.”

There are several promising provisions in the Governors new state budget that may have a substantial impact on those statistics. The budget proposal authorizes $81 million to go toward re-entry centers, mental health services and drug treatment for offenders.

Most significantly, the Budget proposal would require that all felony sentences served in county jails be split between jail time and mandatory supervision, unless a judge concludes that a split sentence is not in the interest of justice. That last provision promises to reverse the current trend, where judges across the state are overwhelmingly sentencing felons to county jail under AB109 for straight time (straight time may not include “mandatory supervision, basically community based supervision or probation).

Until the counties meet their responsibility to provide substantial rehabilitation resources and monitoring for prisoners released from jail under P.C. AB109, we are unlikely to see significant benefits from the transfer of felons from state prisons to county jails.

Brown’s Budget makes good on Reform Mandate (mostly)

January 14, 2014 by admin

January 6, 2013

Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget for the coming fiscal year includes several proposals welcomed by reformers. They are also intended to help the state comply with a federal court order requiring the reduction of prison overcrowding by mid-April to improve medical and mental health care for inmates.

According to the Sacramento Bee, the budget package:

—allows for the parole of medically incapacitated inmates; considering parole for inmates age 60 or older who have served at least 25 years in prison; and increasing good-time credits for non-violent second-strike offenders

— Frees up $81 million for rehabilitation programs that otherwise would be spent to house inmates, if the federal judges grant the two-year extension to meet a court-ordered prison population cap.

— Spends $8.3 million to redesign the 600-bed Northern California Reentry Facility in Stockton, although it will take more than two years to ready the facility to house male inmates.

— Adds $14 million to fight the smuggling of drugs and other contraband, including cellphones.

— Allocates nearly $65 million for the Department of State Hospitals to help the agency deal with a more violent mentally ill population that increasingly comes from the criminal justice system. A U.S. District judge last year ordered increased federal oversight after finding problems with the department’s treatment of mentally ill inmates.

— Gives counties $500 million for new jail space, on top of $500 million that is now being distributed through a competitive grant program. The proposal requires that counties demonstrate they are taking steps to lower their jail populations by freeing more suspects who are awaiting trial.

— Inmates sentenced to more than 10 years in county jails under the state’s two-year-old criminal justice realignment law would again serve their time in state prisons. That would increase theprison population by a projected 300 inmates, felons that sheriffs have said they are not equipped to handle. The shift would come only if the state is able to comply with federal judges’ prison crowding reduction order.

— Reduces the cost to counties to send local inmates to state-run firefighting camps. Counties have said the current $46 daily rate is too costly. Counties would pay $10 a day for each inmate at a firefighting camp, and $81 each day the inmates are being trained.

— Requires that all felony sentences served in county jails be split between jail time and mandatory supervision, unless a judge concludes that a split sentence is not in the interest of justice.

That last item is extraordinarily important. Though Courts have had the power to split sentences under “Realignment” they overwhelmingly have declined to do so. If passed, this provision will create a right to a split sentence (unless the court makes a special finding), which will require the courts to grant “mandatory supervision” to less serious prisoners housed in county jails, releasing offenders into the community under the supervision of Probation and optimally involving them in rehabilitation programs that will help reintegrate them into the community.

Not all of these provisions can be considered reforms (the provision allowing counties to shift prisoners from county jail to prison when a sentence is more than ten years is of particular concern), but they are an important step in the right direction, including many provisions that reformers have sought since Realignment was announced in 2011.

Holding Steady in the New Year

January 8, 2014January 5, 2014 by admin

January 6, 2014

Reading the articles, studies, and editorials over the past few month can bring on an attack of schizophrenia. Different news sources review the same studies regarding sentencing and prison reform and come to completely different conclusions. It’s interesting to track the stories as they have played out in the media. What started out last year as widespread over the top endorsements of prison and sentencing reform has morphed into a mixed bag of modest optimism and panicked defeatism.

I think I have an idea of what’s going on. The reforms that are playing out across the country are having some success, but not the extraordinary early success predicted by some. That allows the more reactionary elements (especially those financially tied to existing incarceration models), to redouble their efforts to undermine reform efforts.

The expectation is that releasing an offender into the streets should result in immediate rehabilitation . Well it doesn’t work that way. It takes sustained and systemic effort to get folks to change their ways. Consider, can we really expect those released with no resources, skills, family, jobs and/or education and often without housing or sustenance, to change on their own. It defies logic to expect that, but that is what those attacking sentencing and prison reform are arguing should happen.

In California, in particular, Prison Realignment, the historic reform being implemented, moves less serious offenders out of prison into county jurisdiction (meaning county jail for many). Recently it has come under attack as precipitating a “crime wave”, both in our communities and in our jails.

We’ve heard how jail violence has increased in California and how it must be inextricably linked to the violent offenders held in jail rather than prison. At the same time the critics seem to ignore the fact hat violence in prison is substantially down as well (see: Cal Jails see increased violence since Realignment)

We hear about the latest news reports on those released under realignment from 2011 through 2012 and read how their has been an uptick in California crime which must be the result of realignment. However, if you read the actual report by Magnus Lofstrom and Steven Raphael of the Public Policy Institute of California, “Public Safety Realignment and Crime Rates in California” [click on image on left for PDF], you come away with little reason for panic. It should concern us, that the lack of structured reentry systems in much of California is a problem, and one sufficient to cause reassessment and modification of the existing sentencing systems.

For example, while there is little evidence of any increase in violence there is substantial evidence of a small increase in property crime, in particular car theft. We also know that there are 18,000 fewer offenders in custody (27,000 fewer in prison minus 9,000 additional in our jails). It stands to reason that we need to modify how we deal with the non-violent property offender, including the use of the funds we are saving (by not locking up 18000 prisoners), to provide resources and assistance as well as increased monitoring where appropriate. None of these changes come easy, but there is excellent reason to believe they are slowly working themselves out, if you manage to hold steady in the new year.

President Obama takes tentative steps toward Sentencing Reform

January 5, 2014December 23, 2013 by admin

December 23, 2013

In a tentative step toward federal sentencing reform President Obama reduced the sentences of eight prisoners serving long federal prison sentences — six of them life sentences — under draconian laws for crack-cocaine sentencing. He also pardoned 13 others, at least six of whom were in prison for drug offenses.

This administration has been reluctant to use the pardoning power of the president to effect prison sentencing reform. In this instance, the President noted that some prisoners effected by his pardon would have been released under new federal laws enacted over the past two years.

. “Prior to Thursday’s announcement, he had commuted only one sentence during his tenure, out of 8,700 commutation applications” according to Families Against Mandatory Minimums. His rate of both pardons and commutations was the lowest of any president in modern history.

The administration argues that they are getting prison and sentencing reform ready for the coming year and expect to pass important criminal justice reforms with the help of conservative legislators. And perhaps, the President’s strategy is correct, as conservative a Senator as John Cornyn (R-TX) has introduced a prison reform bill.

In the Senator’s statement introducing the bill, he noted, “Modeled after successful reforms in Texas, this bill will target only non-violent, low-risk offenders to reduce the taxpayer burden, while ensuring that dangerous criminals remain off the streets. By working to reduce the number of repeat-offenders, we can improve safety, as well as costs, for our communities.”

We may find the Administration letting Conservatives take the lead in Prison and Sentencing Reform is the best strategy for getting reform passed.

Ohio Prison Reform Not Reducing Recidivism

December 16, 2013 by admin

December 16, 2013

Ohio prisons director Gary Mohr is concerned that a package of prison reforms passed in 2011 have so far failed to achieve their goal of reducing the number of prisoners.

Director Mohr in an interview with members of the Northeast Ohio Media Group and Plain Dealer editorial boards, said “some aspects of that law, which was Senate Bill 86, haven’t worked – such as risk-reduction sentencing, which allows the release of certain prisoners who complete treatment and programming while incarcerated.While about 50,000 people have been sent to prison in the state since the new law took effect, Mohr said, risk-reduction sentencing has been used in less than 400 cases.

“There’s something wrong with it,” Mohr said. “It’s wrong or we haven’t communicated it well enough (to judges)”. Risk-Reduction Sentencing allows judges to issue what are called “risk-reduction” sentences. That means if inmates have a good record in prison and participate in programs, they qualify to get out early. As described in an ACLU article on the Ohio dilemma, “Why did things turn out this way? The short answer is that the bill’s provisions haven’t had the impact that lawmakers expected because its provisions aren’t being fully utilized.”

Interestingly, last year we reported on the conflict between Ohio judges and the Corrections Department’s interest in keeping less serious offenders out of prison (“Judges Upset at Ohio Prisons for Rejecting Commitments”). At the time we were reporting a different aspect of the Reform Package, a section that would prohibit the court from sending non-serious first offenders to prison, if rejected by the Corrections Department. Some judges bridled at what they saw as a loss of sentencing discretion.

The issue is very much the same. And it it exists across the nation. Judges reluctant to use new discretionary powers to keep offenders out of prison or to release them early under new statuary authority. Whether its California judges sentencing offenders to straight jail terms on prison sentences (rather than jail and community supervision), or Ohio judges refusal to use their discretion to keep non-violent offenders out of prison, Judges are reluctant to use scientific evidence-based risk assessments in sentencing non-violent offenders to non-prison sentences.

For the first time in decades, the legislatures, governors, and corrections agencies in a multitude of states are handing judges the tools to use their discretion to keep offenders out of prison and under community based supervision. The shame is that so few are willing to do so.

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.