« October 20, 2019 - October 26, 2019 | Main | November 3, 2019 - November 9, 2019 »

November 1, 2019

"The Decline of the Judicial Override"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper now on SSRN authored by Michael Radelet and G. Ben Cohen.  Here is its abstract:

Since 1972, the Supreme Court has experimented with regulation of the death penalty, seeking the illusive goals of consistency, reliability, and fairness.  In this century, the court held that the Sixth Amendment prohibited judges from making findings necessary to impose a death sentence.  Separately, the court held that the Eighth Amendment safeguarded evolving standards of decency as measured by national consensus.

In this article, we discuss the role of judges in death determinations, identifying jurisdictions that initially (post 1972) allowed judge sentencing and naming the individuals who today remain under judge-imposed death sentences.  The decisions guaranteeing a jury determination have so far been applied only to cases that have not undergone initial review in state courts.  Key questions remain unresolved, including whether the evolving standards of decency permit the execution of more than 100 individuals who were condemned to death by judges without a jury's death verdict before implementation of the rules that now require unanimous jury votes.

November 1, 2019 in Death Penalty Reforms, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 31, 2019

Rounding up some death penalty news and notes

In order to cover a number of notable death penalty stories of late, I will resort here to a round up of headlines and links.  As always, I welcome reader feedback on whether some of these pieces (or others in this arena) merit additional attention:

From the AP, "Georgia Supreme Court temporarily halts man’s execution"

From the AP, "2 more Ohio executions delayed amid lack of lethal drugs"

From The Appeal, "Using Nitrogen Gas For Executions Is Untested And Poorly Understood. Three States Plan To Do It Anyway."

From The Conversation, "The death penalty is getting more and more expensive. Is it worth it?"

From the Death Penalty Information Center, "More Than 250 Conservative Leaders Join Call to End Death Penalty"

From the New York Times, "Before First Federal Execution in Years, Family of Victims Dissents"

UPDATE: A few more:

From The Crime Report, "Feds ‘Out of Touch’ on Death Penalty, says Conservative Leader"

From Mother Jones, "Trump Loves the Death Penalty. These Conservatives Don’t."

From NET, "No Scheduled Executions, But Courts Busy With Nebraska Death Penalty Issues"

October 31, 2019 in Death Penalty Reforms, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)

Federal court finds First Amendment violated by sheriff's plan to place signs of sex offender homes on Halloween

A helpful reader spotlighted a new notable federal court ruling dealing with one example of how some local law enforcement officials sometimes use the Halloween holiday to single out registered sex offenders.  This local newspaper story, headlined "Judge sides with sex offenders in ‘no trick-or-treating’ fight," reports on the basics:

A federal judge on Tuesday said a Georgia sheriff’s plan to post “no trick-or-treating” signs at sex offenders’ homes was unconstitutional.

The ruling comes after three registered sex offenders sued Butts County Sheriff Gary Long to stop his office from the practice, which began last year with deputies planting signs that urged Halloween revelers against stopping. Deputies put up some of the signs while others among the county’s 200 registered sex offenders were told to display one themselves or face unspecified trouble, according to the complaint.

U.S. District Court Judge Marc T. Treadwell’s order applies only to the three plaintiffs, meaning it wouldn’t stop the sheriff’s office from placing signs at other registered sex offenders’ homes. But the judge said Long’s legal authority to place the signs was “dubious at best.”

The sheriff disagreed with the ruling but said he’d abide by it. He said he had deputies put the signs up last year because a popular trick-or-treating event on the square in downtown Jackson was cancelled, leading to an increase in door-to-door visits.

“While the vast majority of us may disagree with the Judge’s ruling, I strongly encourage you to NOT take matters into your own hands this Halloween,” Long wrote on Facebook. “Unfortunately, there is no time to appeal before this Halloween.”

Treadwell said the three men who sued are “by all accounts” rehabilitated and living law-abiding lives.“Yet their Sheriff finds it necessary to post signs in front of their homes announcing to the public that their homes are dangerous for children,” the judge wrote. “The Sheriff’s decision is not based on any determination that the Plaintiffs are dangerous. Nor is the Sheriff’s sign-posting founded on Georgia law.”

The sheriff’s plan to place the signs “run afoul” of the First Amendment because it compels the men to display the message even though they disagree with it. The sheriff said he’d sought legal advice in 2018 before placing the signs and believed it was appropriate.

The full 25-page ruling is available at this link, and here is its introduction:

The Plaintiffs are sex offenders. That is because many years ago they committed offenses that fall within the State of Georgia’s definition of sex offenses.  Since then, they have served their terms of imprisonment and have, as far as the law is concerned, paid their debts to society.  But because they have been classified as sex offenders, they remain subject to Georgia’s lifelong requirement that they register with their local sheriff. But by all accounts, they are rehabilitated.  They live productive, lawabiding lives.  Two of the named Plaintiffs live with their parents; one has a six-year-old daughter living with him.  The State of Georgia, under its system for classifying sex offenders, has not determined that they pose an increased risk of again committing a sexual offense.

Yet their Sheriff finds it necessary to post signs in front of their homes announcing to the public that their homes are dangerous for children.  The Sheriff’s decision is not based on any determination that the Plaintiffs are dangerous. Nor is the Sheriff’s sign-posting founded on Georgia law.  Rather, the Sheriff’s decision is based solely on the fact that the Plaintiffs’ names remain on Georgia’s registry of sex offenders.  Further, Sheriff Long plans, as he has in the past, to ban the Plaintiffs from expressing their disagreement with the signs and the message the signs convey.

The Plaintiffs object and seek relief from this Court.  The question the Court must answer is not whether Sheriff Long’s plan is wise or moral, or whether it makes penological sense.  Rather, the question is whether Sheriff Long’s plan runs afoul of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  It does.

October 31, 2019 in Collateral consequences, Reentry and community supervision, Sentences Reconsidered, Sex Offender Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (3)

October 30, 2019

"On One Issue, Americans Are United. Too Many Are Behind Bars."

The title of this post is the title of this New York Times commentary authored by Tina Rosenberg.  Here are excerpts:

Across America, Democrats and Republicans demonize each other — and then sit down to hammer out legislation to reduce mass incarceration.  Last December, Congress passed the First Step Act, which applies to federal prisons.  It increases opportunities for education and rehabilitation in prison, gives inmates more time off for good behavior, requires prisoners be placed closer to their families, and reduces mandatory minimum sentences for some drug offenses.

But the real progress is in the states — a broad range of them.  Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Colorado, California, New Jersey and New York, among others, have all passed major criminal justice reforms.  This momentum shows what can be done.  At the same time, it highlights the rarity of bipartisan progress.

So what is it about criminal justice? It’s certainly not the case that crime lends itself to dispassionate, rational analysis. In the past, no issue seemed more politicized.  Many local politicians won because of 30-second ads showing how tough on crime they were.  Lee Atwater’s infamous Willie Horton ad for George H.W. Bush’s 1988 campaign was perhaps the nadir of American political communication until recently. Democrats also competed to be the toughest on crime and terrified voters — wrongly — with the specter of superpredators.

Creating mass incarceration 30 years ago was a bipartisan project.  So it’s fitting that undoing it is as well.

One reason for bipartisanship is that the criminal justice system has affected so many people — 30 percent of American adults have a criminal record, which the F.B.I. defines as an arrest on a felony charge.  “Every single American family is impacted by the broken justice system,” said Holly Harris, the executive director of Justice Action Network, which works with Republicans and Democrats at the federal and state level to reform criminal justice....

On criminal justice reforms, the language from left and right seems to be converging.  “Originally, conservatives talked about these issues in terms of public safety, recidivism reduction, curbing government spending and big government,” Ms. Harris said.  (The prison system is a perfect conservative target: a hugely expensive failure of a government program that deprives people of their freedom.)  “And progressives talked in terms of reducing racial disparities and increasing fairness.  But I’ve watched that evolve.”

October 30, 2019 in Elections and sentencing issues in political debates, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Notable review and reflection on Prez candidate criminal justice reform forum at Eastern State Penitentiary

Earlier this week, there was an historical (but ultimately disappointing) forum for Democratic Prez candidates at the historic Eastern State Penitentiary.  Here are two links providing an overview of the event: 

The headline of the Inquirer piece highlights the main reason I am inclined to call the event disappointing, though this effective Intercept piece by Alice Speri capture my mood even more fully.  The lengthy piece is headlined "The Presidential Town Hall On Mass Incarceration Was A Historic Moment And A Missed Opportunity," and here are excerpts:

The candidates who showed up on Monday — Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, and billionaire Tom Steyer — sat close to a few dozen audience members representing a wide range of justice reform organizations led by those who know the system best. There were hugs, selfies, and some hard questions. But most notable was the absence of most of the presidential candidates, including all the frontrunners, and the sometimes evasive answers of the candidates who did show up.

“In that room, you had some of the foremost leaders in the country, folks who have been working for decades to lift the systemic oppression of incarcerated people,” said J. Jondhi Harrell, a Philadelphia activist who spent 25 years in federal prison. “To those who say that they want to be president and have specific ideas about how to reform the system, you have the opportunity to speak to the experts in the field. To just wave this off and say it’s not important really speaks to what you feel not only about justice reform, but also about black and brown people.”

Erica Smith, a California-based organizer with a group that provides transitional housing for formerly incarcerated people, made a similar point. “I was disappointed that some of the other candidates didn’t value what we have to say enough to come have a discussion with us,” she said. “We are 70 million deep in the United States, people who are system-impacted. It’s just the feeling of being discarded once again.”...

In the end, those leaving the event said they were elated that something so unprecedented could have even happened, but they were hardly impressed with candidates’ turnout or commitments....

But while attendees gave the three candidates who showed up in Philadelphia credit for being there to hear them out, several said they left more convinced than ever that any real changes to the system would need to happen without politicians.

“Historically, I’ve seen the United States just ignore our communities and so I won’t feel hopeful until I see results,” said Josh Glenn, who runs a Philadelphia-based group for incarcerated youth and felt that Booker had skirted around a question he had asked about the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. “I hope whatever president comes into office, that they do the right thing by our communities. But if they don’t, we’re going to stand up for ourselves, and we’re going to make sure that we get what we need on our own.”

October 30, 2019 in Campaign 2020 and sentencing issues, Elections and sentencing issues in political debates, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

"The Case for Race-Based Sentencing"

The title of this post is the headline of this new Vice piece discussing an interesting sentencing issues being engaged by Canadian courts. The subheadline of the piece summarizes the essentials: "In a case that could change how judges punish Black people, Ontario's top court will soon decide how much systemic racism should be taken into account when sentencing." Here are excerpts (links from original):

[W]hen [Kevin] Morris was convicted of possessing a loaded gun, his first offence, Ontario Superior Court Justice Shaun Nakatsuru decided to reduce his sentence from four years to 15 months, noting the systemic disadvantages Morris faced in his life as a Black man growing up in Toronto.  Morris’s sentence was further reduced to one year because police interrogated him after he had requested a lawyer.

To help make his decision, Nakatsuru used a cultural assessment of Morris, written by a clinical social worker and consisting of interviews and data that gave insight on him.  In his judgment, Nakatsuru wrote, “You began to notice how many were dying in your neighbourhood. Dying of violence. You did not have a lot of options. You decided you would live with it. That you would survive. Yet at the same time, you felt hopelessness.”

But in the spring the Crown will challenge that decision in the Court of Appeal, arguing that the judge was too lenient in his decision. If Morris wins, it could set a precedent for the use of cultural assessments in sentencing....

Nana Yanful, a lawyer for the Black Legal Action Centre, one of the 14 interveners on Morris’s appeal case, says that Morris’s case gives courts a chance to address the circumstances of Black offenders. She says the courts should stop asking if race can be a reason for leniency, and start to ask, if the offender wasn’t Black, how likely is it that they would be involved with the criminal justice system?

Judges in Canada already consider personal circumstances such as mental health, age, and past criminal record when sentencing an offender. Since 1999 judges have been legally obliged to consider the systemic disadvantages Indigenous offenders experienced before sentencing.

This is called the Gladue principle, and came into effect after a Cree woman pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was handed a three-year prison sentence. The Crown requested a conditional sentence, due to the offender’s history of substance abuse and lack of education. The judge did not grant the request, since she was off reserve at the time of the murder.

But after the case went to the Supreme Court, and the sentencing decision was upheld, the court clarified a section of the Criminal Code that would allow judges to recommend restorative justice measures for Indigenous offenders, such as reduced sentencing.

There is no similar principle for Black offenders, who make up 9 percent of the federal prison population, even though Black people only represent 3.5 percent of the population. The Office of Correctional Investigators reported a 69 percent increase of Black inmates between 2005 and 2015. While lawyers and judges can request cultural assessments, it’s up to the presiding judge to decide if it’s appropriate based on the circumstances of the case.

In Nova Scotia there has been a growing trend of judges considering cultural assessments in sentencing Black offenders. In one notable Nova Scotia Supreme Court case, Honourable Justice Jamie Campbell reviewed the cultural assessment of an African Indigenous man convicted of second-degree murder, before sentencing him to life in prison in 2017. Although the cultural assessment did not lead to a lighter sentence, it prompted “a judge to struggle with difficult questions for which there may not really be entirely clear answers,” the decision stated.

“That is why the cultural assessment is both a fascinating and a challenging document,” Campbell wrote in his judgment. “It provides information that makes it harder, not easier, to reach a conclusion. That is a good thing. The challenge comes from acknowledging the role that race plays in the prevalence of violent crime among young African Nova Scotian men while not falling into racist traps.”

Nova Scotia has been collecting data for cultural assessments since 2016, with 20 total requests. And requests have been increasing: In 2018 there were five requests for cultural assessments, while 11 have been requested so far this year.

A defence win in Morris’s case would set the same standard in Ontario, and also affect the disproportionate rate of incarcerated Black people in Canada. “What we’ve been doing so far isn’t working. The disproportionate impact is leading to a disproportionate outcome,” Yanful said. “So let’s take a step back and see what the sentencing court, and what the criminal justice system can do to be able to address this issue meaningfully.”

October 30, 2019 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Race, Class, and Gender, Sentencing around the world, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 29, 2019

"Women’s Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2019"

Womenpie2019_pressimage_croppedThe Prison Policy Initiative continues to do an amazing job with updated accounts of the "whole pie" of different aspects of the US criminal justice system, and today's latest report is this updated version of an accounting of women who are incarcerated in the United States.  Here is part of the report's introductory text:

With growing public attention to the problem of mass incarceration, people want to know about women’s experience with incarceration. How many women are held in prisons, jails, and other correctional facilities in the United States? And why are they there? How is their experience different from men’s? While these are important questions, finding those answers requires not only disentangling the country’s decentralized and overlapping criminal justice systems, but also unearthing the frustratingly hard to find and often altogether missing data on gender.

This report provides a detailed view of the 231,000 women and girls incarcerated in the United States, and how they fit into the even broader picture of correctional control. We pull together data from a number of government agencies and calculates the breakdown of women held by each correctional system by specific offense. The report, produced in collaboration with the ACLU’s Campaign for Smart Justice, answers the questions of why and where women are locked up...

In stark contrast to the total incarcerated population, where the state prison systems hold twice as many people as are held in jails, more incarcerated women are held in jails than in state prisons. As we will explain, the outsized role of jails has serious consequences for incarcerated women and their families.

Women’s incarceration has grown at twice the pace of men’s incarceration in recent decades, and has disproportionately been located in local jails. The data needed to explain exactly what happened, when, and why does not yet exist, not least because the data on women has long been obscured by the larger scale of men’s incarceration. Frustratingly, even as this report is updated every year, it is not a direct tool for tracking changes in women’s incarceration over time because we are forced to rely on the limited sources available, which are neither updated regularly nor always compatible across years.

Particularly in light of the scarcity of gender-specific data, the disaggregated numbers presented here are an important step to ensuring that women are not left behind in the effort to end mass incarceration.

October 29, 2019 in Prisons and prisoners, Race, Class, and Gender, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (0)

Guest post by Anonymous: "Donald Trump Not A Boon to Private Prison Industry"

Download (5)A thoughtful person recently sent me an email with thoughtful observations on what the Trump era has meant for the private prison industry in the financial markets.  I asked if I could post the musings, and I was allowed to put up this text under the byline "Anonymous."  Enjoy:

Anyone remotely interested interested in criminal justice reform could hardly forget the immediate effect that President Trump’s law-and-order election had on the private prison industry.  Almost immediately, there was an out with the old (Obama) and in with the new (Sessions) ideological shift that saw the value of these companies double in value (press report here). There was very little reason to hope that many reformer’s goal of banning private prisons would come to fruition.

Almost three years later, my life as an investor — along with the non-stop chatter about the S&P 500 at new all-time highs — had me curious to see what the performance of these stocks was since President Trump took over.  My discovery was somewhat astonishing (although pleasantly so); GEO (GEO Group) and CXW (Core Civic Inc. — formerly Corrections Corporation of America) are now trading at Pre-Trump levels (prices that factored in a Hilary Clinton presidency and the potential banishing of the private prison industry as a whole).  Coupled with the fact that this is happening notwithstanding the S&P 500 hitting an all-time high today and rallying 50% or so since Trump's election.  Now when you factor in that these stocks doubled in the weeks following the election, they are actually down 50% since!  That is EXTREME relative underperformance.

What does this all mean?

1.  The major share holders of these stocks feel there is significant likelihood of a Democrat being elected in 2020 — so much so that they have ALREADY begun to dump their stocks a year early,

2.  Trump’s policies are seriously emptying out the private prison through expedited deportations and/or decreasing of prison populations,

3.  States have significantly begun to reduce its number of inmates (after all, there are far more state inmates than federal ones), 

4.  Nothing at all.

Just an interesting thought that intersects last week’s criminal justice forum and today’s new stock market highs.

One thing is for certain — President Trump has not done well for the private prison industry, and that’s just fine by me.

            — Anonymous

October 29, 2019 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (2)

Prez candidate Beto O'Rourke releases a "comprehensive plan to end mass incarceration"

Via this extended Medium posting, Beto O'Rourke has released what he titles "Beto’s Comprehensive Plan to End Mass Incarceration and Reform Our Criminal Justice System to Prioritize Rehabilitation." The plan is too lengthy and detailed for ready summary, but here are a few of the sentencing parts:

October 29, 2019 in Campaign 2020 and sentencing issues, Elections and sentencing issues in political debates, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (2)

October 28, 2019

Upon SCOTUS remand, Indiana Supreme Court remand Timbs after setting out excessiveness standards

In Timbs v. Indiana, the US Supreme Court unanimously held that the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states, but then remanded the case back to the Indiana courts to figure out just how that Clause should apply in Tyson Timbs' case.  Today, the Indiana Supreme Court issued this opinion in which it further remands the case to the state trial court with the help of a lengthy opinion explaining its approach to the Clause.  Here is how the opinion starts and concludes:

Civil forfeiture of property is a powerful law-enforcement tool.  It can be punitive and profitable: punitive for those whose property is confiscated; and profitable for the government, which takes ownership of the property.

When a civil forfeiture is even partly punitive, it implicates the Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines. And since that safeguard applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, we now face two questions left open by the Supreme Court of the United States.  First, how should courts determine whether a punitive, in rem forfeiture is an excessive fine? And second, would forfeiture of Tyson Timbs’s vehicle be an excessive fine?

We answer the first question with an analytical framework similar to those of almost all courts to have addressed the issue.  For the second question, we remand for the trial court to determine, based on that framework, whether Timbs has cleared the hurdle of establishing gross disproportionality, entitling him to relief....

Conclusion

Over twenty-five years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that in rem forfeitures can be punitive and, thus, fines subject to the Eighth Amendment’s excessiveness limitation.  It left to lower courts the task of establishing the appropriate measure of excessiveness — a task that we take up today.

We accordingly hold that a use-based in rem fine is excessive if (1) the property was not an instrumentality of the underlying crimes, or (2) the property was an instrumentality, but the harshness of the punishment would be grossly disproportional to the gravity of the underlying offenses and the owner’s culpability for the property’s misuse.

Here, Timbs’s Land Rover was an instrumentality of the underlying offense of drug dealing.  But we remand for the trial court to answer the question of gross disproportionality based on the framework we set out.

October 28, 2019 in Fines, Restitution and Other Economic Sanctions, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

"We've Normalized Prison: The carceral state and its threat to democracy"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new Washington Post commentary authored by Piper Kerman.  I recommend the full piece (which is part of this new Prison issue in the Post's magazine), and here are excerpts:

The reach of the American criminal punishment systems stretches to clutch far more people than many imagine.  I know this not only from being incarcerated, but also from teaching nonfiction writing classes in state prisons.  My students’ stories bravely reveal difficult personal truths and bring to light much wider realities in a way that only lived experience really can.  What incarcerated writers’ voices illustrate is that the American criminal justice system does not solve the problems — violence, mental illness, addiction — that it claims to address....

Indeed, far from solving our problems, the carceral state is causing a massive one: A nation that locks up so many people and creates an expansive apparatus that relies on violence and confinement is a nation in which democracy, over the long term, cannot thrive.  For centuries, the U.S. political economy has relied on millions being sidelined from democratic participation, most notably African Americans and, before 1920, women.  Violence, in the form of lynching, was always important to limit democracy in this country (and agents of law enforcement were often complicit).  As we near 2020, civic exclusion is still a critical tool for those invested in preserving an inequitable status quo, and the policies surrounding mass incarceration are invaluable for continuing to deny participation to millions of Americans.

Last year, the citizens of Florida voted to amend the state constitution to allow people like me, with felony convictions, to regain the right to vote after returning home.  Quickly and shamelessly, the Florida legislature and governor responded by passing a poll tax to prevent those voters — disproportionately people of color and poor people — from having a voice.  Many other states also restrict voting rights of prisoners or ex-prisoners, especially states with large African American populations — not a coincidence, as they remain overly targeted and punished by the criminal justice system.  As a result, we have not only normalized prison but normalized the exclusion of large groups of people from participating in our democracy....

Freedom and safety are too often imagined as being in opposition, but nothing could be further from the truth. Americans who have the most freedom — freedom to learn, freedom from illness, freedom of movement, freedom from violence — are invariably the safest, and the whitest, and the richest.  We did this to ourselves: Mass incarceration is a result of policies that have grown out of a history of slavery, colonialism and punishment of the poor.  Until we reconcile with these hard truths, by listening to the people most affected by the loss of freedom, we will fall far short of equity. We have a choice: We can permit injustice to remain a growth industry or we can elect to have a more fair, restorative and effective system.  And this isn’t an abstract choice — it is one you will make today, and tomorrow, and next week. Ending mass incarceration is imperative for democracy, safety and freedom.  Do you see what is happening in your own community?  And are you ready to do your part?

October 28, 2019 in Prisons and prisoners, Race, Class, and Gender, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (2)

October 27, 2019

Mayor Pete Buttigeig releases extensive criminal justice reform plan expanding on prior Douglass Plan

Back in July, as detailed in this post, Mayor Pete Buttigieg introduced this notable platform titled "The Douglass Plan: A Comprehensive Investment in the Empowerment of Black America."  The plan, which aspires to "dismantle old systems and structures that inhibit prosperity and builds new ones that will unlock the collective potential of Black America," gives considerable attention to "Criminal Justice Reform," with nearly a quarter of this 18-page document focused on such matter. 

Not content, this weekend Mayor Buttigieg released an even more detailed an ambitious criminal justice reform plan at his campaign website under the heading "Securing Justice: Reforming Our Criminal Legal System." The full plan, which is available here and runs 16 dense pages with more than 70 footnotes, defies simple summarization. So here are a few sentencing part that caught my eye (with some formatting lost):

Pete is committed to reducing the number of people incarcerated in the United States at both the federal and state levels by 50%.... To remedy this, Pete will:

Double funding for federal grants for states that commit to meaningful reform and prioritize funding for programs aimed at pretrial reforms, decarceration, and expansion of alternative to incarceration (ATI) programs....

On the federal level, eliminate incarceration for drug possession, reduce sentences for other drug offenses, and apply these reductions retroactively....

Legalize marijuana and automatically expunge past convictions. Pete will push Congress to pass legislation requiring that a significant percentage of tax revenue flowing from legalization is directed back to the communities and people most devastated by the war on drugs....

Eliminate mandatory minimums. The average sentence for someone subject to a mandatory minimum penalty in 2017 was 138 months, compared to 28 months as the average sentence of people convicted of an offense that did not have a mandatory minimum sentence. Eliminating mandatory minimums and decreasing overall sentence length for a significant number of crimes is critical to ensuring that people are not incarcerated when there is no effect on public safety, and it will reduce incarceration. It also will eliminate the role mandatory minimums plays in incentivizing people to plead guilty for crimes they did not commit.

Direct the U.S. Sentencing Commission to explore sentencing caps for all crimes. America’s mass incarceration crisis has been driven in large part by excessive sentencing. Powerful evidence confirms that long sentences have not made Americans safer. Further, we know that people often “age out” of crime as they move through the course of their lives. For this reason, Pete is committed to exploring innovative policy solutions to address the nation’s over-incarceration crisis, such as caps on sentencing.

Commute the sentences of people who are incarcerated in the federal system beyond what justice warrants by establishing an independent clemency commission that sits outside the Department of Justice. An independent clemency commission, with diverse professional backgrounds and lived experiences, will make the process more streamlined and comprehensive....

Support a constitutional amendment to abolish the death penalty.

Reduce the over-reliance on solitary confinement and abolish its prolonged use, bringing the United States in line with international human rights standards, which define the use of solitary confinement in excess of 15 days as per se torture.

October 27, 2019 in Campaign 2020 and sentencing issues, Elections and sentencing issues in political debates, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (2)