Sentencing Law and Policy

Is it really "shocking" that President Obama has not spoken out concerning state criminal justice reform proposals?

The question in the title of this post is prompted by a comment in this new Fox News piece, which is headlined "High times: 3 states to vote on recreational marijuana use."  Here are excerpts:

Advocates of legalizing marijuana for recreational use may be closing in on their first statewide victory. Voter initiatives that would legalize up to an ounce of pot will be on the ballot in three states in November: Oregon, Colorado and Washington State. Polling shows the measures leading in Washington and Colorado with at least 50 percent support.

“If Washington or Colorado wins in November, and both of them have a good chance to do so, it is going to be transformative in the way we think about marijuana policy in this country and even outside,” says longtime legalization advocate Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance....

President George Bush’s drug czar, John Walters, can’t understand why President Obama is not using his bully pulpit.  “I think it’s shocking that Attorney General Holder, the Director Kerlikowski, but most of all the president of the United States, can’t talk about this,” says Walters.  “It’s about health, it’s about safety, it’s about the future of the country.”

Meantime, Initiative 502 in Washington State keeps racking up endorsements. Most elected leaders in Seattle support the measure, including the current sheriff and his opponent in the upcoming election. Former U.S. Attorney John McKay is one of its sponsors. But the most stunning endorsement came from the Children’s Alliance, an umbrella organization for 100 child welfare groups.

Jon Gould, Deputy Director of the Children’s Alliance, says marijuana laws are being enforced unevenly and that hurts minorities and the poor. “If those kids’ parents are shut out of housing, shut out of employment, shut out of education opportunities, we’re not helping those kids,” says Gould.

Legalization opponents argue very few people are locked up for marijuana possession. A survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that .07% of all state inmates were busted for marijuana possession only. “We need to understand that drugs and gangs go hand in hand,” says Paul Chabot, who advised Presidents Clinton and Bush on drug policy. “They destroy communities. What we have to do is work keeping people off this stuff, not liberalizing policies.”

Legal or not, young people would still be barred from smoking pot.  And critics argue more kids would try it, something the administration has always been against.  But so far this election year, instead of using the power of the office, that message has gone up in smoke.

Regular readers know I share John Walters hope that President Obama, as well as wanna-be President Romney, will address marijuana policy on the campaign trail and in the debates. But I hardly think it is "shocking" that the President has not opined on the proposals to legalize marijuana at the state level in three states, just as I do not think it is "shocking" that he has not addressed California's big criminal justice initiatives or other state-level reforms that may or may not impact federal criminal justice enforcement priorities.

Regular readers likely know that I am following the politics surrounding drug policy reform closely because I have a hard time connecting conservative talking points about freedom, states' rights and nanny-state over-regulation with the categorical opposition to state-by-state reconsideration of absolute pot prohibition.  Given that Republican VP candidate Paul Ryan has indicated that he believes states should be free to develop their own medical marijuana laws while other Republicans have endorsed pot legalization in Colorado and Washington, I am surprised and somewhat disappointed that Fox News thinks it is "fair and balanced" to assail President Obama on this front, especially given how hard his US Attorneys are going after medical marijuana facilities throughout the west.

Some recent and older related posts:

• When and how might pot prohibition or federal pot policy enter the 2012 Prez campaign?
• Prominent Republicans in Washington state, Colorado endorse legal pot"
• VP candidate Paul Ryan says states should have right to legalize medical marijuana
• Prominent conservative Tom Tancredo supporting marijuana legalization initiative in Colorado
• "Drugs, Dignity and Danger: Human Dignity as a Constitutional Constraint to Limit Overcriminalization"
• New astute articles on the modern realities of pot politics, policies and practices
• Colorado the new "ground zero" for debates over pot prohibitions and policies
• Latest Colorado poll showing majority support for marijuana legalization ballot initiative
• "Medical Marijuana in Colorado and the Future of Marijuana Regulation in the United States"
• NAACP gets behind marijuana legalization inititative in Colorado
• A Beastly articulation of my (foolish?) hope candidate Romney might embrace the Right on Crime movement
• Marijuana legalization advocate getting warm reception at CPAC
• "Bummer: Barack Obama turns out to be just another drug warrior"

"Prominent Republicans in Washington state, Colorado endorse legal pot"

The title of this post is the headline of this notable new Reuters piece.  Here are excerpts:

Ballot measures to legalize marijuana in Washington state and Colorado gained support this week from a pair of prominent Republicans -- U.S. Senate candidate Michael Baumgartner and former Representative Tom Tancredo -- who could help sway conservative voters.

No state has ever legalized marijuana for recreational use. The federal government considers it an illegal drug, but 17 states and the District of Columbia allow it as medicine.

Baumgartner, the Republican challenger to Washington state's Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell, said in a phone interview the state initiative, which would allow the sale of marijuana to people 21 and older at state-sanctioned stores, is a "thoughtful way forward."...

Tancredo, who served five terms in the House of Representatives from 1999 to 2009, this week endorsed the legalization campaign in Colorado.  He argued government should not interfere with people's choice to use pot.

In Oregon, a third state where voters this November will decide whether to allow recreational use of pot, the campaign has struggled to find big name Republican supporters.

Legalization opponent Kevin Sabet, a former adviser to the Obama administration's drug policy director, disputed the argument of many libertarians that government should not interfere in pot use by people.  "The libertarian argument is fundamentally flawed because drug use does not affect just the individual, it affects healthcare costs, criminal justice costs that we see with a legal drug like alcohol and costs to our highway safety," Sabet said.

Some recent and older related posts:

• Prominent conservative Tom Tancredo supporting marijuana legalization initiative in Colorado
• When and how might pot prohibition or federal pot policy enter the 2012 Prez campaign?
• VP candidate Paul Ryan says states should have right to legalize medical marijuana
• "Drugs, Dignity and Danger: Human Dignity as a Constitutional Constraint to Limit Overcriminalization"
• New astute articles on the modern realities of pot politics, policies and practices
• Colorado the new "ground zero" for debates over pot prohibitions and policies
• Latest Colorado poll showing majority support for marijuana legalization ballot initiative
• "Medical Marijuana in Colorado and the Future of Marijuana Regulation in the United States"
• NAACP gets behind marijuana legalization inititative in Colorado
• A Beastly articulation of my (foolish?) hope candidate Romney might embrace the Right on Crime movement
• Marijuana legalization advocate getting warm reception at CPAC
• "Bummer: Barack Obama turns out to be just another drug warrior"

Gov Jerry Brown's notable (wise? unprincipled? chicken$%#&?) evolution concerning California's death penalty

Today's Sacramento Bee has this intriguing front-page article headlined "Jerry Brown sidesteps death penalty discussion as California voters face choice." Here are excerpts:

Two years ago, in the waning days of the gubernatorial campaign, Jerry Brown was asked why, given his moral reservations about the death penalty, he wouldn't try to stop it anymore.  As a young man, Brown had lobbied his father, then-Gov. Pat Brown, to stay a man's execution, and he vetoed death penalty legislation when he was governor before.

"I don't know," Brown said on an airplane between campaign rallies in the Central Valley. "You want to reinvent the world. But we have the world.  And this is a matter that's been before the voters … been before the Legislature.  At this point in time, it's relatively settled."

It may still be.  Though the margin is slight, a plurality of likely voters opposes a Nov. 6 ballot measure to repeal the death penalty, according to the Field Poll.  Nevertheless, the measure, Proposition 34, is on the ballot -- and Brown wants no part of it.

The Democratic governor has declined to say how he will vote on the death penalty or other ballot measures, and he is not expected to do so before Election Day.  He said is focused solely on his own initiative to raise the state sales tax and income taxes on California's highest earners.

Brown's careful distance from abolishing the death penalty, a cause he once championed, reflects the caution of a governor who has grown more sensitive to the limitations and political hazards of his office than when he was governor before, from 1975 to 1983....

Brown was 21 when, one night in 1960, he called his father to urge a temporary stay of execution for convicted rapist Caryl Chessman.  Chessman was ultimately executed, but not before his father granted the temporary stay.  The decision was unpopular, and Pat Brown later said his political career suffered badly for it.

Seven years later, when Aaron Mitchell was executed at San Quentin State Prison, Jerry Brown participated in a vigil outside the prison, and 10 years after that, Brown vetoed legislation -- overridden by the Legislature -- to reinstate the death penalty.

He called it "a matter of conscience," a sentiment he expanded upon when he was asked while running for president in 1992 if his opposition to the death penalty was absolute. "Yes," Brown said.  "When someone is contained in a cage, then to bureaucratically, coldbloodedly snuff out their life, whether by poison or by electrocution or by gas, it seems, it doesn't seem right to me."

Peter Finnegan, a longtime friend of Brown's and his debate partner in high school, recalled holding candles outside San Quentin with Brown when they were young men.  They don't talk about the death penalty anymore.  "He just doesn't want to talk about it," said Finnegan, now a retired lobbyist and political activist. "You get nowhere talking about it, really, and it's kind of behind him, and everyone knows where he is, and that's that." When Brown was governor before, Finnegan recalled, "we'd sit around until 2 in the morning (discussing) this stuff." Now, Finnegan said, "he's just more focused … . I just think he's so much more mature."...

His position has been made awkward, however, by the presence of the death penalty initiative.  One day in April, Brown called it a "very, very important issue" and said he was glad the measure would be on the ballot, before saying that afternoon that his commitment to enforcing the death penalty was unwavering.  "I will carry out the law," Brown said, "without fear or failure and with fidelity to the will of the people."

A governor's endorsement can matter in an initiative campaign, but less so in one that involves a high-profile matter such as the death penalty, about which voters typically hold highly emotional, pre-existing beliefs.  Likely voters oppose Proposition 34, the measure to replace the death penalty with life without the possibility of parole, 45 percent to 42 percent, according to a recent Field Poll.

As suggested by the title of this post, I am interested in hearing reader views as to the right adjective to describe Gov Brown's death penalty evolution. I am inclined to pick the adjective "chickenshit" because I consider Brown's effort to stay mute on such a significant and symbolic aspect of the state's criminal justice system to be an act of profound political and personal cowardice.  Moreover, I think it would be pretty easy for Brown and his advisers to develop a politically astute and personally satisfying statement on this topic. That statement could read something like:

"Though I have long been morally opposed to the death penalty, I deeply respect those with contrary moral views, and I am personally and professionally committed to vigorous enforcement of any and all duly enacted criminal justice laws reflecting the will of the people in our state.  I am thrilled that this important issue is garnering renewed attention and that our citizens will now have the opportunity to express their current position on this matter directly via the ballot box.  Based on my long-standing moral beliefs, I expect to vote for Prop. 34, and I am especially excited to learn about the views of all fellow Californians on Prop 34 come November 6."

Some questions I might ask during the upcoming Presidential debates

As this recent post noted, crime and punishment — and especially federal crime and punishment — does not seem a big concern for the electorate this campaign season.  Nevertheless, there are no shortage of timely and important sentencing law and policy questions that could usefully be posed at the big debate tonight in Denver to the two Harvard Law School graduates seeking to be the US President for the next four years.

I fear there will not be a single question focused on criminal justice issues in tonight's debate, despite the reality that a significant portion of federal government spending and a massive portion of state government spending is devoted to these big government programs.  But, in the spirit of the evening, I must articulate some serious questions on serious federal criminal justice topics that might provide an interesting window into the candidates' views:

• Do you support the bill introduced by Ron Paul and Barney Frank to get the federal government out of the marijuana regulation business (basics here)?  Would you sign or veto such a bill as president if it came to your desk?

• If Colorado or another state were to fully legalize (and heavily tax) local marijuana production and sales via  a widely-supported voter initiative, what kind of guidance might you issue via the Justice Department to US Attorneys within that state concerning the enforcement of federal criminal law prohibiting any and all marijuana production and sale?  

• Do you consider the modern "War on Drugs" — a federal government program started by Richard Nixon and increasingly funded at the federal level by every President since — to be an example of a failed government program or an example of government success?

• According to a Pew Center report in 2009, state criminal correction spending has quadrupled in the past two decades, outpacing budget growth in education and transportation (basics here).   Meanwhile, the Justice Department has written repeatedly to the US Sentencing Commission about federal prison spending and overcrowding (see here and here), and the GAO just last month reported that "the growth in the federal inmate population has negatively affected inmates, staff, and infrastructure" (see report here).  Are you troubled by these fiscal and practical challenges now presented by modern incarceration levels and spending at the federal level and in the states?

Regular readers likely know that I could go on and on with these kinds of wonkish questions — concerning the application of the federal death penalty or the problems of federal prosecutorial misconduct or the importance of federal clemency authority — but at this point I will bring this pre-debate post to a close and welcome comments from readers on this front (which can, of course, be posted before during or after tonight's debate).

A few recent and older related posts: 

• "Crime not on presidential contest radar"
• Could Romney appeal to independents and minorities with bold crime and punishment vision?
• A Beastly articulation of my (foolish?) hope candidate Romney might embrace the Right on Crime movement
• "The GOP platform’s surprisingly progressive stance on crime"
• When and how might pot prohibition or federal pot policy enter the 2012 Prez campaign?
• "Colorado marijuana legalization among crucial issues in state"
• Is it really true that "conservatives and liberals are increasingly united" on criminal justice reform?

Latest California polling shows (unsurprising?) split for two major sentencing initiatives

As reported in this new Los Angeles Times article, there are new and notable poll numbers concerning the two big sentencing initiatives on the California ballot this fall.  The article is headlined " Californians back change on three strikes, but not on death penalty; Proposition 36 would ease the three-strikes sentencing law. Proposition 34 would replace the death penalty with life without possibility of parole." Here are excerpts from the lengthy article discussing the latest numbers:

California voters support easing the state's tough three-strikes sentencing law by a margin of more than 3 to 1 but are reluctant to abolish the death penalty, according to a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll. The poll results come as voters ponder a pair of ballot measures that, if approved, would make dramatic changes to the state's criminal justice system.

Support for an initiative that aims to replace capital punishment with life in prison without parole is trailing 38% to 51%, the poll found.  But that gap narrows to a statistical dead heat when voters learn that Proposition 34 also requires convicted killers to work while in prison, directs their earnings to their victims and earmarks $100 million for police to solve murders and rapes.

Despite voters' ambivalence over capital punishment, a ballot measure seeking to amend the three-strikes law is attracting strong support from a broad cross section, including conservatives. Proposition 36 takes aim at what critics of three strikes call its unfairest feature by changing the law so that offenders whose third strikes were relatively minor, such as shoplifting or drug possession, could no longer be sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

"We've built this society on the idea that the penalty depends on the crime," said poll respondent Hamilton Cerna, 31, a registered Republican from Downey who works as an employee relations consultant. "If you're going to take away somebody's freedom, then I feel like it should be for a damn good reason."  The measure to soften the three-strikes law was backed by 66%, with only 20% opposed and 14% undecided or not answering. Both ballot initiatives need a simple majority to pass.

The USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times poll canvassed 1,504 registered voters from Sept. 17 to 23.  The survey was conducted jointly by the Democratic polling company Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and the Republican firm American Viewpoint.  The margin of error is 2.9 percentage points.

The propositions target two of California's most iconic and controversial tough-on-crime sentencing laws. The "Three Strikes and You're Out" law won overwhelming voter approval in 1994 amid heightened public anxiety over crime.  The law targets offenders who have previous convictions for at least two serious or violent crimes, such as rape or robbery. Any new felony conviction can trigger a prison sentence of at least 25 years to life. Of the state's nearly 8,900 third-strikers, about a third were convicted of drug or nonserious property crimes.

Proposition 36 would end life terms for such offenders, who would instead be treated as if they had only one previous strike and be sentenced to double the standard prison term for their latest crime.... Inmates already serving 25 years to life for nonserious and nonviolent offenses could get a reduction in their sentences if a judge decides they do not pose an unreasonable risk to the public. The proposition's changes would not apply to offenders with previous convictions for murder, rape or child molestation, or to those whose latest offense involved a sex crime, major drug dealing or use of a firearm....

More than half of voters who described themselves as conservative said they supported amending the three-strikes law, with just over a quarter opposing the measure, according to the poll.  "It's not fair to taxpayers. It's not fair to the offender," said Don Chapman of Anaheim, a registered Republican who used to oversee drivers and equipment for a distribution company before retiring.

Although the poll gives the initiative a large advantage, a 2004 attempt to amend the three-strikes law held a similar lead in polls until an advertising blitz by opponents in the final week of the campaign. That proposition lost 53% to 47%. The current measure is opposed by victims rights groups and more than a dozen law enforcement associations, including the California District Attorneys Assn. and the union that represents rank-and-file LAPD officers.

Opponents note that judges already have the authority to spare a third-striker the maximum sentence. They argue that the proposed amendment removes a powerful tool that has put away dangerous offenders before they could hurt more people.  Norman Tripp, a retired corrections officer and supervising prison counselor who participated in the survey, said he believes the initiative would result in more crime. "At what point does society say, 'I'm going to end this person preying on people'?" Tripp, of Susanville, asked.

Proposition 34 offers Californians their first opportunity to decide whether the state should have the death penalty since two-thirds of voters amended the state Constitution to allow capital punishment in 1972. 

Only 13 inmates have been put to death in California since executions resumed and none since 2006.  California has more than 725 inmates on death row, the most in the nation, and they are more likely to die of old age, illness or suicide than by lethal injection.

The USC Dornsife/Times poll mirrors similar surveys finding that support for the death penalty has waned.  When voters were read the proposition language on the November ballot, 43% favored Proposition 34, with 45% against.  The margin of error for that result was 4.1%.

The escalating costs of the death penalty — an issue highlighted by the proposition's supporters — did not move respondents. After voters were told the state could save as much as $130 million annually by abolishing capital punishment, opponents of Proposition 34 still outnumbered supporters by the same margin — 46% to 44%. 

Pollsters said the overall results did not bode well for the measure and show that most voters already have firm opinions on the issue.  Susan Estabrook, 52, a teacher's aide who lives in Marysville and took part in the poll, said the cost had no bearing on her support for executions of murderers. "If someone commits that heinous of a crime, they just don't even need to be here," she said.

Some respondents who favored Proposition 34 said they were motivated as much by whether it was fairly carried out as by cost.  Kevin Calandri, 69, a retired college professor from Sacramento, said he intended to vote to abolish the death penalty because "the people who are more likely to be sentenced to death are poor minorities."

Recent related posts:

• If money can really buy elections, the death penalty will be dead in California
• If major newspaper editorials matter, the death penalty will be dead in California
• New poll numbers (and polling techniques) surrounding California DP repeal initiative
• New poll suggests death penalty repeal has a chance on California ballot
• "California’s Proposition 34 and Proposition 36 expose red meat in a blue state"

"Crime not on presidential contest radar"

The title of this post is the headline of this notable new USA Today piece, which includes these excerpts:

Presidents and lesser politicians have been delivered to victory more often than not for taking tough stands on crime. Yet during a year punctuated by mass shootings at a Colorado movie theater and temple in Wisconsin, crime has all but vanished from public discussion this campaign season.

In a presidential election cycle dominated by concerns for a faltering economy and unemployment, crime rated a forgettable asterisk earlier this month in a Gallup Poll, representing less than 1% of Americans who believed it was the nation's most pressing problem. "When the economy is as big a problem as it is, it kind of squashes out the others," said Frank Newport, Gallup's editor in chief....

According to polling data..., 2012 represents just one more presidential election in which the often-emotional issue of crime has ranked near the bottom of the public agenda. The last time crime rated as the top concern of the American public was in 1996, according to Gallup.

"The most important responsibility of an elected official is to provide for the safety of the people they represent, and we haven't heard much talk about that," said Jim Pasco, the FOP's executive director. "When there is the kind of violence that we have seen this summer, you do expect there to be a discussion about it," he said. "But it seems like it is the last thing on the public agenda."

Chuck Wexler, executive director of the law enforcement think tank Police Executive Research Forum, said the apparent lack of attention is "a sign of the times."

"Twenty years ago, the homicide rate was double what it is today," he said. "If we compare ourselves against ourselves, crime has declined fairly dramatically.  But if we compare ourselves to countries like the United Kingdom, that's another story." There were more than 600 murders in Great Britain last year, compared to more than 13,000 in the U.S. "The gun issue is radioactive in this country for both Democrats and Republicans," Wexler said. "No one nationally has spoken about it. It's not even on the radar screen."

Long-time readers likely recall my laments that national crime and punishment issues failed to garner any significant attention in the 2004 or 2008 campaigns. Rather than curse this criminal justice darkness, I hope this weekend to do a post with timely federal crime and punishment questions that could be interesting and revealing during next week's first big presidential debate. In the meantime, I wonder if readers are inclined to complain or cheer the failure of any significant national politicians to give any real attention to these issues.

Some recent and older related posts: 

• Could Romney appeal to independents and minorities with bold crime and punishment vision?
• A Beastly articulation of my (foolish?) hope candidate Romney might embrace the Right on Crime movement
• "The GOP platform’s surprisingly progressive stance on crime"
• When and how might pot prohibition or federal pot policy enter the 2012 Prez campaign?

Arkansas Supreme Court rejects challenge to state medicial marijuana ballot initiative

Thanks to How Appealing, I see via this AP article that the "Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a proposed ballot measure that, if successful, would make the state the first in the South to legalize medical marijuana." Specifically, that court "rejected a challenge by a coalition of conservative groups who had asked the court to block the proposed initiated act from the November ballot or order the state to not count any votes cast on the issue." Here is more about the ruling and its import:

Arkansas will be the first Southern state to put the medical marijuana question to voters. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have legalized it in some fashion. Massachusetts voters are also expected to vote on the issue this fall, while the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled a medical marijuana initiative can't appear on that state's ballot.

The conservative coalition argued that Arkansas' 384-word ballot question doesn't accurately describe other consequences of passing the 8,700-word law, including a provision that would allow minors to use medical marijuana with parental consent.

Justices disagreed and said the proposed law is fairly summarized in the question that will appear on the ballot. "Here, after reviewing the ballot title of 384 words, we conclude that the title informs the voters in an intelligible, honest and impartial manner of the substantive matter of the act," the ruling said....

Medical marijuana has never come before voters in the South partly because of the difficulty of getting such initiatives on the ballot. And conservative legislators throughout the region have not backed the efforts. The Washington-based Marijuana Policy Project has provided most of the funding for the campaign in Arkansas, contributing $251,000 to the effort.

Officials with the group said they stepped in after polling showed strong support for the measure in Arkansas. Group leaders also cite a "symbolic" value in passing a medical marijuana law in the South. "I think it's a sign that marijuana policy reform is an idea that is coming of age now across the nation, rather than just in the states where we've seen it so far," said Morgan Fox, the group's communications director. "It's really an important moment."

Gov. Mike Beebe, who is opposed to the proposal, told reporters on Thursday he doesn't believe the state's voters would legalize medical marijuana. Beebe said he's asked for an estimate of how much it will cost the state to regulate the dispensaries if the measure passes. "If I understand what I think I understand about it, if it passes, it's going to require a whole of administration from the health department," Beebe said. "I don't know where we're going to get it from."

The full unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court of Arkansas is available at this link.

"California’s Proposition 34 and Proposition 36 expose red meat in a blue state"

The title of this post is the headline of this notable commentary discussing the two big California sentencing inititative coming before voters this fall.  Here is how the piece gets started:

Don’t believe the cable-news chatter about California being some bastion of weak-tea liberal values. When it comes to our criminal-justice system — and its penchant for mandatory-sentencing guidelines, gang enhancements and the death penalty — the Golden State is as red meat as they come.  “It’s remarkably out of sync with the rest of the country,” contends University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law professor Michael Vitiello.

Which is why two initiatives on this November’s ballot are rustling some eyebrows.  The impressively funded, broadly supported Proposition 36 aims to modify a three-strikes law that voters overwhelmingly adopted way back in 1994.  Specifically, Prop. 36’s authors want to make sure that anyone going away for 25 years to life on a third-strike conviction is being prosecuted for a serious or violent offense rather than for stealing videotapes....

Proposition 34, meanwhile, is taking on the death penalty itself — not because it’s unethical for a government to execute its own citizens, but because it’s too damn expensive.  A study last year by former prosecutor and federal judge Arthur L. Alarcon says it cost California roughly $4 billion to snuff out 13 death-row inmates since voters reinstated capital punishment in 1978. Prop. 34 promises to save hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and put a chunk of that toward solving more murders and rapes.

Likewise, Prop. 36 makes its case on largely pragmatic grounds, with proponents dangling the juicy carrot of $70 million to $90 million in projected annual savings if the measure passes.

With two ballot initiatives that fly in the face of the accepted “tough on crime” paradigm, the question becomes whether California is experiencing something of a sea change when it comes to its counterintuitively hard-assed stance on crime and punishment.

The short answer is: nah.  “I see only a weak trend, not one that’s going over a cliff,” observed Vitiello, an expert on sentencing reform.

Relatedly, last week the legal newspaper The Recorder had this lengthy article on Prop. 36 under the headlined "Third Try at Shrinking the Strike Zone Likely to Succeed."

Linking state pot initiatives to prior push back against Prohibition

Jacob Sollum has this new piece on state marijuana reform efforts at Reason.com under the headline "The Marijuana Rebellion: State ballot initiatives aimed at legalizing pot pose a new challenge to prohibition."  The piece begins with a reminder of state-level rejections of alcohol prohibition, as well as the latest polling numbers on pot initiatives:

By the time the 21st Amendment ended national alcohol prohibition in December 1933, more than a dozen states had already opted out.  Maryland never passed its own version of the Volstead Act, while New York repealed its alcohol prohibition law in 1923.  Eleven other states eliminated their statutes by referendum in November 1932.

We could see the beginning of a similar rebellion against marijuana prohibition this year as voters in three states — Washington, Colorado, and Oregon — decide whether to legalize the drug's production and sale for recreational use.  If any of these ballot initiatives pass, it might be the most consequential election result this fall, forcing both major parties to confront an unjust, irrational policy that Americans increasingly oppose.

With six weeks to go before Election Day, Oregon's Measure 80, which would establish a commission charged with licensing growers and selling marijuana through state-run stores, seems to be in trouble.  In a SurveyUSA poll this month, only 37 percent of respondents said they planned to vote yes, while 41 percent were opposed and 22 percent were undecided.

But the other two initiatives are polling strongly.  According to a SurveyUSA poll conducted two weeks ago, 57 percent of Washington voters favor Initiative 502, which would authorize private pot stores regulated by the state liquor commission; only 34 percent were opposed.  A SurveyUSA poll completed on September 12 found that 51 percent of Colorado voters support Amendment 64, which would allow home cultivation of up to six plants and create a licensing system for growers and retailers; 40 percent were opposed.

Neither of these measures is a sure thing by any means.  California's Proposition 19, a marijuana legalization measure that was ultimately supported by 47 percent of voters in November 2010, polled above 50 percent in several surveys.  But while the SurveyUSA approval number for Proposition 19 peaked at 56 percent in April 2010, dropping to 47 percent by September, support for the Washington and Colorado initiatives appears to be growing.

Some recent and older related posts:

• When and how might pot prohibition or federal pot policy enter the 2012 Prez campaign?
• VP candidate Paul Ryan says states should have right to legalize medical marijuana
• New astute articles on the modern realities of pot politics, policies and practices
• Prominent conservative Tom Tancredo supporting marijuana legalization initiative in Colorado
• Colorado the new "ground zero" for debates over pot prohibitions and policies
• Latest Colorado poll showing majority support for marijuana legalization ballot initiative
• "Medical Marijuana in Colorado and the Future of Marijuana Regulation in the United States"

Prominent conservative Tom Tancredo supporting marijuana legalization initiative in Colorado

The Huffington Post via this new entry headlined "Tom Tancredo Backs Legal Weed: 'Marijuana Prohibition Has Failed Us'," has alerted me to another prominent conservative voice speaking out in support of state marijuana reform efforts. Tom Tancredo is a former Republican congressman who is now endorsing Colorado's ballot initiative to legalize marijuana.  Here is part of his explanation why in this commentary appearing in the Colorado Springs Gazzette:

Exactly 80 years ago, the people of this great state passed a ballot initiative declaring an end to the misguided big-government policy experiment that was alcohol prohibition.  One year later, the federal government followed.

This November, the voters of Colorado have the opportunity to repeat history.  On the ballot is Amendment 64, an initiative that would end marijuana prohibition in the state and regulate the production and sale of the substance.

In many ways, marijuana prohibition is very similar to alcohol prohibition.  Nowhere is this more apparent than in their impact on public safety.

In the 1920s, alcohol prohibition led to the widespread proliferation of violent criminal organizations who corrupted politicians and law enforcement officials to illegally peddle booze to otherwise law-abiding citizens.  Similarly, by keeping marijuana illegal for the last 75 years, we have created a black market that helps fuel some of the most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world....

I am endorsing Amendment 64 not despite my conservative beliefs, but because of them. Throughout my career in public policy and in public office, I have fought to reform or eliminate wasteful and ineffective government programs.  There is no government program or policy I can think of that has failed in such a unique way as marijuana prohibition.

Our nation is spending tens of billions of dollars annually in an attempt to prohibit adults from using a substance objectively less harmful than alcohol.  Yet marijuana is still widely available in our society.  We are not preventing its use; we are merely ensuring that all of the profits from the sale of marijuana (outside the medical marijuana system) flow to the criminal underground.

Regardless of what ultimately happens on the federal level, we have an opportunity to stop pouring money into a failed system in Colorado.  According to the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, we current spend anywhere from $25 to $40 million dollars per year arresting, citing, processing, and prosecuting marijuana offenders throughout the state.  A recent report from the Colorado Center on Law and Policy found that savings achieved through eliminating these law enforcement costs, combined with increased tax revenues generated from the legal production and sale of marijuana, would net the state $60 million in the first year alone.

In addition to the economic and public safety arguments for ending marijuana prohibition, I also support Amendment 64 for a much broader, philosophical reason.  Marijuana prohibition is perhaps the oldest and most persistent nanny-state law we have in the U.S. We simply cannot afford a government that tries to save people from themselves.  It is not the role of government to try to correct bad behavior, as long as those behaviors are not directly causing physical harm to others....

Across the board, our current system of marijuana prohibition has failed. It has failed to protect our kids from drug dealers pushing other, far more dangerous drugs, it has failed to keep our borders safe, and it has failed to use taxpayer dollars in the most responsible and efficient manner possible.  It is time to try something new. 

New poll suggests death penalty repeal has a chance on California ballot

This new San Francisco Chronicle piece, headlined "Death penalty repeal close in poll," reports that the latest polling shows a close contest for the California ballot initiative calling for repeal of the state's death penalty. Here are the details:

California voters are closely divided on a November ballot measure to repeal the state's death penalty law, with significant differences in support among regions and age groups, a new Field Poll reports.

The survey found that Proposition 34, which would make life in prison without parole the maximum punishment for murder, was opposed by 45 percent of likely voters and favored by 42 percent, with 13 percent undecided. The results amounted to a statistical tie, since the poll's margin of error was 4.3 percentage points.

The poll, released Tuesday, was conducted Sept. 6-18 among a random sample of 468 voters....

Prop. 34 will be California's first vote on capital punishment since 1978, when a 71 percent majority approved expansion of a death penalty law that had been passed the previous year over Gov. Jerry Brown's veto.

Backers of the Nov. 6 measure are focusing on the economic impact of the death penalty, citing studies that found the state spends as much as $184 million a year more than it would if the maximum sentence were life without parole. Prop. 34 would transfer $100 million over four years to law enforcement programs to solve murder and rape cases.

The new poll found that Prop. 34 was supported by Democrats, 50-37 percent, and even more strongly by unaffiliated and third-party voters, 54-33 percent, but opposed 23-65 percent by Republicans.

Residents of coastal counties favored the measure 45-41 percent, within the poll's margin of error, but inland residents opposed it 34-55 percent. The Bay Area provided the strongest regional support, 57-35 percent.

Men were evenly split, while women narrowly opposed the measure. Younger voters were about equally divided, but those ages 50 to 64 opposed Prop. 34 by 39 to 51 percent, and voters over 65 opposed it 38 to 46 percent.

Recent related posts:

• If money can really buy elections, the death penalty will be dead in California
• If major newspaper editorials matter, the death penalty will be dead in California
• New poll numbers (and polling techniques) surrounding California DP repeal initiative

If money can really buy elections, the death penalty will be dead in California

The title to this post is prompted by this new article from California, which is headlined "Rich and famous in Silicon Valley, Hollywood backing campaign to abolish California's death penalty." Here are excerpts:

Proposition 34, a ballot measure that would abolish the death penalty in California, faces long odds at the polls. But it has a major advantage over the opposing campaign -- wealthy donors, from Silicon Valley executives to Hollywood actors, willing to write fat checks.

With less than two months to go before the election, Proposition 34's campaign has amassed more than $5.4 million to persuade California voters to get rid of capital punishment, dwarfing the paltry $208,000 gathered by a pro-death-penalty coalition of law enforcement and victims' rights groups.

From Netflix CEO Reed Hastings and new Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer to actor Ed Asner and rocker Jackson Browne, the Proposition 34 campaign has a glittering roster of the rich and famous putting money behind the first vote on whether to retain the death penalty in California since it was reinstated in 1978....

But anti-Proposition 34 forces say there is enough entrenched sentiment for the death penalty that they don't need as much to get the message out, as long as voters hear from police, prosecutors and victims' families.  "We know we are going to be out-raised because we don't have Hollywood celebrities and liberal do-gooders on our side," said McGregor Scott, a former Sacramento U.S. attorney heading the campaign against the measure. "Ours will be an old-fashioned, word-of-mouth, grass-roots" campaign....

Pundits say that with an issue such as the death penalty, it's hard to evaluate whether the "money talks" advantage in most political campaigns applies.  "Normally you see something like that and say it's a slam dunk," said Larry Gerston, a San Jose State political-science professor.  "But in this case, it's such an emotional issue for people that I don't think they need a campaign against it.  And it's always harder to get a 'yes' vote on something than a 'no' vote."

Others agree, but say that the substantial money difference could tip the scales if the polls show a tight race as the Nov. 6 election approaches.  Indeed, the Proposition 34 campaign has plans to run statewide television ads in the final weeks before the election.

"If law enforcement opposes this and nobody knows, that would be a disadvantage," said Thad Kousser, a University of San Diego political-science professor.  "If you look at the general literature on propositions, especially in California, money matters on both sides."...

The two biggest donors to Proposition 34 so far are Nicholas Pritzker, CEO of the Hyatt hotels chain, and the Atlantic Advocacy Fund, a New York-based philanthropy established by billionaire Charles Feeney.  Both have chipped in $1 million.

Silicon Valley's wealthy are also well-represented.  They include Hastings, the Netflix CEO, who donated $250,000, and the Emerson Collective, a nonprofit headed by Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple's Steve Jobs.  Emerson contributed $150,000.

For his part, Hastings believes the main argument in favor of Proposition 34 -- that the death penalty is a waste of money -- is a good reason to back it. "In California, we will save tens of millions of dollars every year if we change from the death penalty to life in prison without chance of parole," Hastings told this newspaper in an email exchange. "That money would be better spent on educating kids instead."

I never cease to be amazed and, I suppose, impressed that so many persons are so willing to devote time, energy and now a huge amount of money in order to help ensure murderers spend the their full natural lives in a cage rather than be potentially be subject to execution by the state. (And given than more people die as a result of drunk drivers in California each year than are on California's death row, I cannot help but wonder how many more lives might be saved if all these "wealthy donors, from Silicon Valley executives to Hollywood actors, [were] willing to write fat checks" to MADD of California or to help fund passive ignition lock technologies.)

That said, I think rich donors eager to end the California death penalty might devise some more clever means to push their agenda. Rather than just give money to an ad campaign, perhaps these rich folks should offer to create a special private fund to help pay for the college education of children of murder victims which would make payouts only if the death penalty were repealed. Personally, I think the $5 million+ now already dedicated to try to sway voters "would be better spent on educating kids instead."

Latest Colorado poll showing majority support for marijuana legalization ballot initiative

As reported in this Denver Post article, headlined "Colorado marijuana legalization initiative leads in new poll," the latest poll data shows continued majority support for a state initiative to legalize marijuana in Colorado. Here are the details:

A majority of Colorado voters support a ballot measure to legalize limited possession of marijuana, according to a new Denver Post poll.

The poll found that the measure, Amendment 64, has the support of 51 percent of likely voters surveyed, compared with 40 percent opposed. Men favor the measure more than women, a common gender split on the issue. But 49 percent of women polled said they support the measure, compared with 39 percent who said they are opposed.

Across every income bracket and in every age group except those 65 and older, more voters told pollsters they support the measure than oppose it, though some of the leads fall within the 4-percentage-point margin of error. Voters younger than 35 support the measure by a margin of 30 percentage points, 61 percent to 31 percent, according to the poll.

The automated telephone poll was conducted Sept. 9-12 for The Post by New Jersey-based SurveyUSA. About 26 percent of those questioned were cellphone-only users, who were shown a questionnaire on their smartphone, tablet or other electronic device. Of voters included in the sample, 34 percent said they are Republicans, 34 percent said they are Democrats, and 30 percent identified as unaffiliated voters.

While several previous polls have found more support for Amendment 64 than opposition, the Post's survey is the first independent poll to find more than 50 percent support.

That may not hold until Election Day — support for a 2010 marijuana-legalization measure in California polled at 52 percent three months before the election, while the measure ultimately failed with 54 percent opposition. But the results suggest Colorado could be in position to become the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana possession for adults for recreational use.

Some recent and older related posts:

• Colorado the new "ground zero" for debates over pot prohibitions and policies
• "Medical Marijuana in Colorado and the Future of Marijuana Regulation in the United States"
• "Drugs, Dignity and Danger: Human Dignity as a Constitutional Constraint to Limit Overcriminalization"
• When and how might pot prohibition or federal pot policy enter the 2012 Prez campaign?
• VP candidate Paul Ryan says states should have right to legalize medical marijuana
• "Medical Marijuana in Colorado and the Future of Marijuana Regulation in the United States"
• A Beastly articulation of my (foolish?) hope candidate Romney might embrace the Right on Crime movement
• New astute articles on the modern realities of pot politics, policies and practices

UPDATE:  This article, written by Paul Armentano from the pro-legalization group NORML and headlined "Most Statewide Marijuana Initiatives Lead Solidly In Polls," reports that polls show support for the majority of state marijuana initiatives on the ballot this election year. The piece starts with this helpful review of all the initiatives:

Four of the six statewide marijuana initiatives appearing on the November 2012 ballot are solidly favored among likely voters.

Voters in six states –- Arkansas, Colorado, Massachusetts, Montana, Oregon, and Washington –- will be deciding on marijuana-specific ballot measures this November.

In Massachusetts, voters will decide on Question 3, a statewide proposal that seeks to allow for the physician-recommended possession and state-licensed distribution of cannabis for therapeutic purposes.  Arkansas voters will decide on a similar measure, the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Act of 2012.  Montana voters will decide on Initiative Referendum 124, which is a referendum on Senate Bill 423 -- a 2011 measure that seeks to restrict the state’s 2004, voter approved medical cannabis law.

Colorado voters will decide on Amendment 64, which immediately allows for the legal possession of up to one ounce of marijuana and/or the cultivation of up to six cannabis plants by those persons age 21 and over.  Longer-term, the measure seeks to establish regulations governing the commercial production and distribution of marijuana by licensed retailers.  Oregon voters will decide on Measure 80, the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, which provides for the state-licensed production and retail sale of cannabis to adults.  The measure does not impose state-licensing or taxation requirements upon those who wish to cultivate cannabis for non-commercial purposes.  Finally, in Washington, voters will decide on Initiative 502, which seeks to regulate the production and sale of limited amounts of marijuana for adults.  The measure also removes criminal penalties specific to the adult possession of up to one ounce of cannabis for personal use.

VP candidate Paul Ryan says states should have right to legalize medical marijuana

As reported in this AP article, "Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan says the federal government shouldn’t interfere with states that have legalized medical marijuana." Here is more:

The Wisconsin congressman tells KRDO-TV in Colorado Springs that he personally doesn’t approve of medical marijuana laws. But he says that states should have the right to choose whether to legalize the drug for medical purposes.

In response to a reporter’s question, Ryan said: “It’s up to Coloradans to decide.” The interview was taped while Ryan campaigned this week in Colorado Springs and aired Friday.

I wonder if (when?) GOP Prez candidate Mitt Romney will echo this position as this issue continues to arise in swing state Colorado.

Some recent and older related posts on pot policies and politics:

• When and how might pot prohibition or federal pot policy enter the 2012 Prez campaign?
• Two notable new pieces on pot policy debates coming to mainstream politics
• Colorado the new "ground zero" for debates over pot prohibitions and policies
• "Medical Marijuana in Colorado and the Future of Marijuana Regulation in the United States"
• A Beastly articulation of my (foolish?) hope candidate Romney might embrace the Right on Crime movement
• Could Romney appeal to independents and minorities with bold crime and punishment vision?
• "Marijuana Legalization Ballot Shows To Be Favored By Colorado Voters"
• New astute articles on the modern realities of pot politics, policies and practices

Following the money surrounding medical marijuana initiative in Arkansas

This local story, headlined "Financial side of medical marijuana on ballot in Arkansas," provides a detailed account of investments on the competing sides in the Arkansas ballot initiative over medical marijuana. Here are the basic detail:

Thousands of dollars has been spent to put the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Act on the ballot and now with a lawsuit against the state of Arkansas to remove the act, thousands more will be spent to fight it.

It's an issue that is getting individuals and national organizations to open their checkbooks. "It's been a full on campaign for a little over a year now," says Chris Kell, spokesperson for Arkansans for Compassionate Care.  It is a non-profit campaign instrumental in putting the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Act on the ballot.

"We've raised a lot of money from Arkansans from very generous support financially from Marijuana Policy Project," says Kell.  The Marijuana Policy Project is a national non-profit agency that works to reform marijuana laws.  So far, they've spent more than $250,000 to get medical marijuana legalized in Arkansas.

"We are entirely a member supported organization.  We have over 50,000 dues paying members and basically when we go into these campaigns, we like to focus on whatever we can do to get the issue in front of the voters.  In this case, paying for petition gatherers and public education," says Morgan Fox with MPP.

"Our funding comes from individuals and churches right here in Arkansas and that's what I would expect to be the case with this campaign as well," says Jerry Cox, Director of the Family Council Action Committee.  It is a group formed by four Arkansas non-profit agencies (Family's First, The Arkansas Family Coalition, The Arkansas Faith and Ethics Council and Family Council) fighting to remove the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Act from the ballot. They recently filed a lawsuit against the state of Arkansas saying the ballot title did not adequately explain the measure.

Cox says fundraising has just begun and only a few thousand dollars is being used to fight the measure right now but he expects that number to change.  "I would expect our funding to come from right here in Arkansas and it should because the people here in Arkansas are the ones most affected if this measure passes," says Cox.

Recent related post:

• Arkansas voters likely to have opportunity to vote on medical marijuana in 2012

"The GOP platform’s surprisingly progressive stance on crime"

The title of this post is the headline of this astute recent Washington Post piece.  Here are excerpts:

Four years ago, Republicans devoted a section in their platform to the War on Drugs, lamenting the “human toll of drug addiction and abuse” and vowing to “continue the fight against producers, traffickers, and distributor of illegal substances.”

That plank is conspicuously missing from the GOP platform this year.  The fight against illegal drugs is only mentioned in passing, mostly with reference to drug cartels and the ban on using controlled substances for doctor-assisted suicide.

Policy experts agree that the omission is significant.  “This is less a ‘tough on crime’ document than you would have expected.  And leaving out the War on Drugs [is] quite astounding,” says Mark Kleiman, a crime policy expert and professor at UCLA.  “It’s a bit more of a libertarian attitude,” says Marc Levin, who runs a conservative criminal justice reform project called “Right on Crime” that’s attracted the support of Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist.

What’s more, the 2012 platform includes new provisions that emphasize the importance of rehabilitation and re-entry programs to help ex-prisoners integrate back into society — using language that Kleiman describes as “a lot less ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key.’”

“While getting criminals off the street is essential, more attention must be paid to the process of restoring those individuals to the community,” the platform says.  “Prisons should do more than punish; they should attempt to rehabilitate and institute proven prisoner reentry systems to reduce recidivism and future victimization.”  The document also criticizes the “overcriminalization of behavior,” though it doesn’t elaborate on the point much further.

Both Kleiman and Levin believe it’s partly the outgrowth of a prison-reform push on the part of GOP governors whose state budgets have been saddled with high incarceration expenses.  In recent months, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Gov. Chris Christie have embraced crime reform legislation to support the kind of rehabilitation programs that the GOP platform now advocates, with some also reducing jail time for non-violent offenders....

To be sure, there are still some aggressively “law-and-order” provisions in the platform, some of which go farther than the 2008 version.  The previous platform called for mandatory sentences for “gang conspiracy crimes, violent or sexual offenses against children, rape, and assaults resulting in serious bodily injury.”  This year, the provision has been expanded to include all “gang crimes, repeat drug dealers, robbery, and murder.”

But overall, the platform reveals a notable policy shift for the GOP, although it’s hasn’t been one that either side has mentioned much in this year’s election.

Some recent and older related posts:

• Reform records notable (though not so far noted) at Republican National Convention
• Could Romney appeal to independents and minorities with bold crime and punishment vision?
• A Beastly articulation of my (foolish?) hope candidate Romney might embrace the Right on Crime movement
• Ohio's Republican legislature, prodded by Republican gov, enacts major felon reentry reforms
• "The Right Sentencing: Conservatives backtrack on long prison sentences"
• Is it really true that "conservatives and liberals are increasingly united" on criminal justice reform?
• "Right on Crime: The Conservative Case for Reform" officially launches
• "NAACP, right-wing foes get friendly" when it comes to prison costs
• "Conservatives latch onto prison reform"

Reform records notable (though not so far noted) at Republican National Convention

I listened to most of the major speeches during the first night of the Republican National Convention; not surprisingly, I heard no mention of crime and punishment issues.  But that does not mean RNC speakers lack notable records on crime and punishment issues, as this post from FAMM Florida Project Director Greg Newburn highlights:

The Republican National Committee's list of speakers for the GOP convention ... [includes many speakers who have] embraced the “Smart on Crime” model ..., and in the process have demolished the tired idea that conservatives aren’t open to common-sense criminal justice reform.

Take Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who could never be confused with a liberal.  He has argued that “we have not been very successful in incarcerating our way out of the drug problem.  We’ve created a bigger problem.  Our prisons are teeming with people who don’t need to be incarcerated as full-time inmates . . . I’m not soft on crime. Crime needs to be punished, but realistically, and justly.”...

Ohio Governor John Kasich ... has a lifetime rating of 88% with the American Conservative Union.  Governor Kasich made criminal justice reform a priority of his administration, and last year he signed a reform bill designed to “send low-level nonviolent felons to rehabilitation facilities in lieu of prison, put a credit-earned system in place, and adjust prison sentences for drug and petty theft offenses.  The package was proposed as a means to save money, reduce recidivism, and ease overcrowding.”...

Another speaker, Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, recently joined Right on Crime, a group of conservative heavyweights that supports criminal justice reform (including mandatory minimum sentencing reform) and includes Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, and Ed Meese.  Governor Bush said of the effort, “States across the country, including Florida, are proving that policies based on these sound conservative principles will reduce crime and its cost to taxpayers.”

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin worked with Right on Crime, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and Republican legislators to craft a comprehensive Justice Reinvestment bill that included sentencing reforms and is projected to save her state millions of dollars.  On signing the bill, Governor Fallin said, “[I]n addition to saving tax dollars, [community sentencing options ] will help nonviolent offenders, many of whom have substance abuse problems, to receive treatment and safely get back into their communities.”

Of all the speakers at the convention, Senator Rand Paul might be the most vocal critic of mandatory minimum sentencing.  Not only has Senator Paul blocked federal drug legislation because it contained mandatory minimums, he’s said on the record that “On mandatory minimums, I don’t think teenagers accused of possessing drugs should get twenty years in prison.  I’ve fought to get rid of this.”

Perhaps most notably, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said recently that “[t]he war on drugs, while well-intentioned, has been a failure.”  Christie signed reform legislation designed to reduce New Jersey’s reliance on incarceration in drug cases, and made the case that such reforms go beyond saving money:  “If you're pro-life, as I am, you can't be pro-life just in the womb,” he said. “Every life is precious and every one of God's creatures can be redeemed, but they won't if we ignore them.”

Across the country, conservatives understand that criminal justice systems should be subject to the same analysis as every other area of public policy.  They realize we spend far too much on incarceration and receive far too little in return.  Thankfully, some of the GOP’s “brightest stars” have made criminal justice reform a part of governing and leading “effectively and admirably.” It’s good to see the Republican Party not only embracing such reforms, but also rewarding the conservative leaders in criminal justice reform with a chance to share their views at the convention.

Some recent and older related posts:

• Could Romney appeal to independents and minorities with bold crime and punishment vision?
• A Beastly articulation of my (foolish?) hope candidate Romney might embrace the Right on Crime movement
• Marijuana legalization advocate getting warm reception at CPAC
• Ohio's Republican legislature, prodded by Republican gov, enacts major felon reentry reforms
• "The Right Sentencing: Conservatives backtrack on long prison sentences"
• Is it really true that "conservatives and liberals are increasingly united" on criminal justice reform?
• "Right on Crime: The Conservative Case for Reform" officially launches
• "NAACP, right-wing foes get friendly" when it comes to prison costs
• "Conservatives latch onto prison reform"

Following the money in ballot contests over marijuana legalization

This new Reuters article, headlined "Legal marijuana backers raise $3 million in two US states," reports on the state of the ballot race (and the place of money in the race) concerning marijuana legalization. Here are excerpts from the piece:

Campaigns to become the first U.S. states to legalize marijuana for recreational use in Washington and Colorado have raised $3 million ahead of a November vote, far outpacing the opposition.

Proponents of pot legalization in Washington state have raised nearly $2 million since the initiative qualified for the ballot in January, and about $1 million in Colorado since its measure earned a place on the ballot the following month, according to the most recent state campaign figures.

In Oregon, where a voter referendum qualified in July, the legalization campaign reported less than $1,000 in contributions. All three state measures go on the ballot in November, when Americans vote for president and other offices.

With their war chests, backers of legalization drives in Washington state and Colorado have already bought television ads in a bid to convince voters, especially those who have never smoked pot, of merits of legalizing and taxing it....

"If one of these initiatives wins, it will really be a breakthrough," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which seeks alternatives to the current U.S. policy to combat drug use. "And in the end, just as there has been a federal-state conflict involving medical marijuana, we anticipate there will be similar conflicts when states begin to legally regulate marijuana like alcohol," he said. "But the only way we think change can happen is through this process."

Polls indicate support in Colorado and Washington for legalizing pot. A July poll by Survey USA of 630 registered voters in Washington state said 55 percent backed the marijuana legalization ballot measure. The margin of error was 4 percent. Rasmussen Reports said its June poll of likely Colorado voters showed 61 percent supported legalizing and regulating pot. The survey had 500 respondents and a margin of 4.5 percent.

Billionaire Peter Lewis, the Ohio-based chairman of Progressive Insurance who helped finance successful state-level campaigns for medical marijuana, has emerged as the Washington state legalization measure's largest supporter with total contributions this year of $875,000.... Drug Policy Action, a group related to New York-based Drug Policy Alliance, has given $600,000 this year to the Washington legalization campaign.

The Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project has given the two registered groups behind the Colorado campaign most of their roughly $1 million in funds, state records show. Lists of donors to Marijuana Policy Project and Drug Policy Action are not publicly available....

[O]pponents of legalization have so far fallen short in fundraising. State campaign figures show that Smart Colorado has raised the most of any anti-legalization group, but its 2012 total stands at less than $40,000.

Holcomb said her pro-legalization group bought more than $1 million in TV air time in Washington state this month. In Colorado, the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol spent $800,000 for fall season television ads, said Mason Tvert, co-director of the group.

Effective review of three-strikes initiative battle taking place in California

The Sacramento Bee has this lengthy new article providing an effective overview of the 2012 election season debate over an effort to reform California's three strikes law. The piece is headlined "'Three-strikes' battle returns to fall ballot in California," and here are excerpts:

Proposition 36 gives the state's electorate another opportunity to weigh in on California's 18-year-old "three-strikes" law, the toughest career-criminal sentencing statute in the nation.  Twice in as many decades, voters have sided in favor of a three-strikes law that allows judges to impose a life prison term for offenders who commit a third felony -- no matter how minor -- if they have two previous serious or violent criminal convictions on their records.

Proposition 36 proponents want to change the law to restrict the 25-years-to-life sentences, with some exceptions, to criminals whose third felony was serious or violent; nothing less than a residential burglary would qualify as a strike.

The measure would enable an estimated 3,000 of the 8,873 prisoners serving 25-years-to-life terms in the state as of June 30 to apply for resentencing hearings.  If their motions for new terms are granted, a good number of those 3,000 prisoners could go free.  The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates passage of Proposition 36 could save the state anywhere from $70 million to $90 million a year in reduced prison costs.

The initiative has had huge cash infusions from two sources.  Billionaire financier George Soros, the international hedge fund manager who has contributed millions over the years to change drug laws and other statutes he believes are too harsh, kicked in $500,000, according to the secretary of state's records. David W. Mills, a Stanford law professor and private investment manager, matched and raised the contribution.  Mills, a co-chair of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, put in $878,000.  The money Soros and Mills contributed paid for the $1.4 million signature-gathering effort that qualified Proposition 36 for the Nov. 6 ballot.

In an interview, Mills, 65, said his involvement in California's three-strikes law stems from his long-term interest in civil rights.  It is Mills' view that the sentencing measure's "dramatic effect on poor people and African Americans" makes it one of the leading civil rights issues of the day. "The notion I can live in a state in a country where we would send somebody to jail for 25-to-life for stealing a loaf of bread, a pair of gloves, a piece of pizza, for a gram of cocaine, or whatever, to me is incomprehensible," he said.

Opponents of the measure include the California Police Chiefs Association.  Sacramento Police Chief Rick Braziel signed the ballot rebuttal argument against Proposition 36 in his capacity as president of the California Peace Officers Association, arguing that thousands of criminals would be released from prison.  Top victims' rights organizations, such as Crime Victims United of California, also have lined up to fight the measure....

Mike Reynolds, the Fresno photographer whose daughter was murdered by a repeat offender, has served as guardian of the three-strikes law since its 1994 birth.  In an interview, Reynolds noted steep declines in the California crime rate in the 18 years that the law has been in effect.  He wonders why anyone would want to change it, and is angry at the thought of 3,000 career criminals getting out of prison.

"One hundred percent of them would have at least two prior serious or violent convictions," Reynolds said.  "Make no mistake.  We're talking about the bad boys.  These are the guys who are responsible for the worst of our crimes, the most active by definition.  And you want to put them back on the streets and not expect them to come back with new convictions?"

Another Proposition 36 opponent, Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully, sneers at the suggestion that the three-strikes change would save taxpayers' money by releasing people from prison.  "This assumes they're not going to commit any more crimes," Scully said. "Trust me, they are.  Then we'll have to prosecute them again, so they'll be taking up just as many resources as before, except they'll have new victims in their path."

"Colorado marijuana legalization among crucial issues in state"

The title of this post is the headline of this Politico article, which reinforces my view (discussed here) that the presidential candidates will have a hard time dodging all discussion of federal pot prohibition and state pot policy reforms this election cycle.  Here are excerpts:

With the first presidential debate in Denver less than six weeks away, strategists and academics intimately familiar with Colorado gathered in Washington, D.C., to discuss issues particular to the vital swing state, such as marijuana decriminalization, “personhood” votes, the death penalty, and the influence of rising Democratic star Gov. John Hickenlooper.

In a panel sponsored by the University of Denver and moderated by former White House spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers, participants said the Aurora, Colo., shooting failed to spark efforts at gun control, but instead elevated talk of the death penalty, an issue that hasn’t received much national attention during this campaign cycle.

“Gun sales went up in Denver the week of the shooting, so it doesn’t seem to have been the impetus for a conversation on gun control. It has generated a fair amount of discussion about the death penalty however,” said Dr. Sam Kamin, a professor of law at the University of Denver.

The University of Denver will be the site of the first 2012 presidential debate between President Barack Obama and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, to be held on Oct. 3....

And while the issues like the economy, Medicare and the deficit will no doubt be addressed during the debate, panelists took the time to address the specific policies making waves in the state.

At the same time as voters in Colorado head to the polls to cast a vote for president, they will also be addressing ballot questions on abortion and “personhood,” as well as the decriminalization of marijuana — so it is likely that the two presidential candidates might be asked about them.

The marijuana issue “is hugely popular with younger voters. … If they come out strongly and the Obama campaign doesn’t do anything to antagonize them on this issue, they could have a real impact,” Kamin said. “There’s a huge push online to get youth voters energized around that proposition, those are the exact same voters that had a lot of enthusiasm for the president four years ago.” Dee Dee Myers pointed out that Colorado is a state with more medical marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks locations.

Some recent and older related posts on pot policies and politics: 

• New astute articles on the modern realities of pot politics, policies and practices
• When and how might pot prohibition or federal pot policy enter the 2012 Prez campaign?
• Two notable new pieces on pot policy debates coming to mainstream politics
• Colorado the new "ground zero" for debates over pot prohibitions and policies
• "Medical Marijuana in Colorado and the Future of Marijuana Regulation in the United States"
• "Bummer: Barack Obama turns out to be just another drug warrior"
• A Beastly articulation of my (foolish?) hope candidate Romney might embrace the Right on Crime movement
• Marijuana legalization advocate getting warm reception at CPAC
• Could Romney appeal to independents and minorities with bold crime and punishment vision?
• "Marijuana Legalization Ballot Shows To Be Favored By Colorado Voters"